Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

apple0154 said:
Therefore, the individual woman decides. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

That conclusion doesn't really follow logically from anything we've discussed, but sure, whatever.

Im actually pro-choice, i just don't think it's necessary to dehumanize the human being who is killed in this process. It will forever be morally grey. The abortion debate is merely round one of teaching people to dehumanize others, and you gleefully allow yourself to be brainwashed.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That depends on if it's part of the restriction.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Because fish eggs are not the same as fish and because seeds are not the same as trees they have to be specifically mentioned. If they were the same no additional mention would be necessary.

The strange thing is it appears you know that, yet, when it comes to embryos you deviate from that logic. Why?
 
apple0154 said:
Exactly my point. Because fish eggs are not the same as fish and because seeds are not the same as trees they have to be specifically mentioned. If they were the same no additional mention would be necessary.

The strange thing is it appears you know that, yet, when it comes to embryos you deviate from that logic. Why?
Click to expand...

Your logic doesn't really follow. Laws often mention lots of things, and NOT should be taken to represent the reality of a situation through judging omissions and inclusions.

But actual laws aside, would an activist concerned about turtles populations also be concerned about the welfare of the turtle eggs? What do you think?
 
apple0154 said:
OK. Let's get to the heart of the matter. If your sister was experiencing complications with her pregnancy and there was a possibility of her sustaining damage should she be forced to continue the pregnancy?

For example, if she had uncontrolled high blood pressure should she be obliged to take the risk of suffering permanent kidney damage?

As for geneticists I never said it was arbitrary to say something is human. I said it was arbitrary to say something is a human being. My toe is human. It is not a human being.
Click to expand...

If her life is in danger she has a choice to make, her life or the childs. Coming up with extreme cases does not alter one bit the fact that the child is human from the moment of conception. It is simply idiotic to think otherwise.

Oh so now you want to play word games? So you agree the child is human but you don't think it exists? Again, that is simply moronic as it is proven that it both exists and is human. Thus, it is a human being.
 
AssHatZombie said:
That conclusion doesn't really follow logically from anything we've discussed, but sure, whatever.

Im actually pro-choice, i just don't think it's necessary to dehumanize the human being who is killed in this process. It will forever be morally grey. The abortion debate is merely round one of teaching people to dehumanize others, and you gleefully allow yourself to be brainwashed.
Click to expand...

It is the anti-abortionists who dehumanize the human being by saying our worth, our value, is no more than that of a fertilized cell.

I'm not pro-abortion. I have nothing against embryos or fetuses. What I find repulsive and outrageous is the notion of comparing them to the life of a woman.

If the life of an embryo or a fetus is the same as the life of a woman then there will be times when the woman's life must be sacrificed for a fetus or embryo. That is what I find abhorrent.

For example, let's say a woman discovers she has cancer shortly after conceiving. The doctor tells her the treatment will destroy the embryo/fetus. He recommends an abortion because if she waits the additional seven months, until delivery, to start her treatment her cancer will spread and she'll most likely die within a year.

If both the lives of the woman and the fetus are equal then to deliberately kill the healthy human being (the fetus) so as to try and save the life of the sick human being (the woman) is absurd to the Nth degree.

It makes a mockery of the whole anti-abortionist platform which is "a fetus is a human being with all the corresponding rights but when push comes to shove the fetus is worth just a little bit less."

Haven't we had enough lessons in history regarding one class of people being worth less? Can we afford to let another twisted version of "this human being is worth more than that human being" enter our society again?

The anti-abortionists already acknowledge this. They are willing to give priority to the woman. They are already saying one human being is worth more than another.

In order to reduce abortions they are willing to subvert, to undermine the most basic principal our society is based on.

Talk about brainwashing. I suggest people take a good look at the anti-abortionist propaganda. Think things through. Pose scenarios and work through them. See what conclusions you come to.

You'll soon find their beliefs are both repugnant and dangerous because the bottom line is it results in two classes of people. One class being a little bit less valuable.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Your logic doesn't really follow. Laws often mention lots of things, and NOT should be taken to represent the reality of a situation through judging omissions and inclusions.

But actual laws aside, would an activist concerned about turtles populations also be concerned about the welfare of the turtle eggs? What do you think?
Click to expand...

When it comes to activists I never assume anything.
 
apple0154 said:
It is the anti-abortionists who dehumanize the human being by saying our worth, our value, is no more than that of a fertilized cell.
Click to expand...
Nobody says that.
I'm not pro-abortion. I have nothing against embryos or fetuses. What I find repulsive and outrageous is the notion of comparing them to the life of a woman.
Click to expand...
They're both living human beings. DOes that comparison offend you?
If the life of an embryo or a fetus is the same as the life of a woman then there will be times when the woman's life must be sacrificed for a fetus or embryo. That is what I find abhorrent.
Click to expand...
No pro-lifers are opposed to abortion where the mother's life is at steak, so you should just simmer the fuck down and quit stressing yourself out with your own strawmen.
For example, let's say a woman discovers she has cancer shortly after conceiving. The doctor tells her the treatment will destroy the embryo/fetus. He recommends an abortion because if she waits the additional seven months, until delivery, to start her treatment her cancer will spread and she'll most likely die within a year.

If both the lives of the woman and the fetus are equal then to deliberately kill the healthy human being (the fetus) so as to try and save the life of the sick human being (the woman) is absurd to the Nth degree.

It makes a mockery of the whole anti-abortionist platform which is "a fetus is a human being with all the corresponding rights but when push comes to shove the fetus is worth just a little bit less."

Haven't we had enough lessons in history regarding one class of people being worth less? Can we afford to let another twisted version of "this human being is worth more than that human being" enter our society again?

The anti-abortionists already acknowledge this. They are willing to give priority to the woman. They are already saying one human being is worth more than another.

In order to reduce abortions they are willing to subvert, to undermine the most basic principal our society is based on.

Talk about brainwashing. I suggest people take a good look at the anti-abortionist propaganda. Think things through. Pose scenarios and work through them. See what conclusions you come to.

You'll soon find their beliefs are both repugnant and dangerous because the bottom line is it results in two classes of people. One class being a little bit less valuable.
Click to expand...

Again. Nobody is opposed to abortion in the case where a mother's life is at stake. And even so, you don't have to dehumanize a fetus to choose the mother's life over the babies. Some situation are just bad, but there is still no reason to get yourself in knots over dehumanizing babies.
 
Superfreak said:
If her life is in danger she has a choice to make, her life or the childs. Coming up with extreme cases does not alter one bit the fact that the child is human from the moment of conception. It is simply idiotic to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

That's a strange position to take. "A person with a faulty body can arbitrarily decide to kill a healthy human being." I see you place a high value on human life. NOT.

Oh so now you want to play word games? So you agree the child is human but you don't think it exists? Again, that is simply moronic as it is proven that it both exists and is human. Thus, it is a human being.
Click to expand...

Of course the embryo/fetus is human. Just like my toe. That does not mean it's a human being.
 
apple0154 said:
That's a strange position to take. "A person with a faulty body can arbitrarily decide to kill a healthy human being." I see you place a high value on human life. NOT.



Of course the embryo/fetus is human. Just like my toe. That does not mean it's a human being.
Click to expand...

but your toe will not blossom into a fully functional human being if left unmurdered.

Your mind is apparently completely barren of biological knowledge.
 
apple0154 said:
"It is the anti-abortionists who dehumanize the human being by saying our worth, our value, is no more than that of a fertilized cell. "

"I'm not pro-abortion. I have nothing against embryos or fetuses. What I find repulsive and outrageous is the notion of comparing them to the life of a woman. "

If the life of an embryo or a fetus is the same as the life of a woman then there will be times when the woman's life must be sacrificed for a fetus or embryo. That is what I find abhorrent.

For example, let's say a woman discovers she has cancer shortly after conceiving. The doctor tells her the treatment will destroy the embryo/fetus. He recommends an abortion because if she waits the additional seven months, until delivery, to start her treatment her cancer will spread and she'll most likely die within a year.

If both the lives of the woman and the fetus are equal then to deliberately kill the healthy human being (the fetus) so as to try and save the life of the sick human being (the woman) is absurd to the Nth degree.

It makes a mockery of the whole anti-abortionist platform which is "a fetus is a human being with all the corresponding rights but when push comes to shove the fetus is worth just a little bit less."

Haven't we had enough lessons in history regarding one class of people being worth less? Can we afford to let another twisted version of "this human being is worth more than that human being" enter our society again?

The anti-abortionists already acknowledge this. They are willing to give priority to the woman. They are already saying one human being is worth more than another.

In order to reduce abortions they are willing to subvert, to undermine the most basic principal our society is based on.

Talk about brainwashing. I suggest people take a good look at the anti-abortionist propaganda. Think things through. Pose scenarios and work through them. See what conclusions you come to.

You'll soon find their beliefs are both repugnant and dangerous because the bottom line is it results in two classes of people. One class being a little bit less valuable.
Click to expand...

1) Where you are going wrong is in your idiotic reference to a human child as a 'fertilized cell'. Both the woman and the child are unique human beings.

2) Actually, yes, you are pro-abortion as you support abortions being legal. Not only that, but you seem to have a hatred for the child as well. Kind of like how people 100 years ago didn't want to be compared on an equal level with blacks.

3) No, there is no time that the woman would be forced to be sacrificed. But if the womans life was in danger to the extent that only she or the child could survive.... then she would have to choose.

4) In the cancer scenario you set forth... again, this is a case where the woman would have to choose since it was not likely that both could survive.

5) "It makes a mockery of the whole anti-abortionist platform which is "a fetus is a human being with all the corresponding rights but when push comes to shove the fetus is worth just a little bit less."

This is comical. It makes absolutely no sense with what you had said thus far.

6) "Haven't we had enough lessons in history regarding one class of people being worth less? Can we afford to let another twisted version of "this human being is worth more than that human being" enter our society again? "

This is even more comical. YOU are the one who sishes to regard one class of people as being worth less. It is not the pro-life people doing so. It is YOU. and NO, we cannot afford to let another twisted version of 'this human being is worth more than that one' enter our society again.

So why do you insist upon bringing back?

7) Please explain your last two paragraphs. How is it that pro-life individuals want two class of humans? You truly are a moron. In one breath you say that you don't want unborn children compared to a woman because they are not equal, in the next breath you say how repugnant it is for people to classify humans to where we are not all equal. Which is it?
 
=AssHatZombie;442475They're both living human beings. DOes that comparison offend you?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! To arbitrarily designate something a human being automatically defines all other human beings as being the same as that which has been designated as such.

No pro-lifers are opposed to abortion where the mother's life is at steak, so you should just simmer the fuck down and quit stressing yourself out with your own strawmen.
Click to expand...

I know they aren't. My point is who are they to arbitrarily decide who dies assuming both are human beings? Why would the sick mother's life take precedence over the healthy fetus's life? What kind if twisted logic is used to decide that?

Again. Nobody is opposed to abortion in the case where a mother's life is at stake. And even so, you don't have to dehumanize a fetus to choose the mother's life over the babies. Some situation are just bad, but there is still no reason to get yourself in knots over dehumanizing babies.
Click to expand...

Again, it is the anti-abortionists who not only dehumanize the fetus but lower the value of human life, in general. What convoluted logic is used to come to the conclusion that regardless of the cause of the mother's problems the fetus (a human being, according to them) is automatically chosen for execution?

I keep repeating this and, hopefully, it will sink in. Apply that logic to any other situation. Choose any group of people and apply that perverted argument.

Let's use an example. Let's say two people are admitted to hospital at the very same time with the very same injury and the hospital had a policy that stated white people are to be attended to first. Would that be acceptable?

Let's say two people are awaiting kidney transplants. Both critical. Both requiring the same blood type. A kidney arrives suitable for both but the hospital has a policy that stipulates Catholics are to be helped before Jews. Would that be acceptable?

That is exactly the principals anti-abortionist policy is based on. They start out with the misguided belief an embryo/fetus is a human being and then they end up having to subvert society's core beliefs to accommodate their absurd position.

An exception here. An exclusion there.

And just who decides how high the stakes are? 50% chance the mother will die? 75%? 35%? And how much permanent damage is acceptable? Is the destruction of one kidney permissible considering she has two?

It appears by your adamant defense of embryos/fetuses you have given this serious thought. Or am I being too generous in my assumptions? I'll find out when reading your reply.
 
Last edited:
apple0154 said:
=AssHatZombie;442475]They're both living human beings. DOes that comparison offend you?[.QUOTE]

Absolutely! To arbitrarily designate something a human being automatically defines all other human beings as being the same as that which has been designated as such.



I know they aren't. My point is who are they to arbitrarily decide who dies assuming both are human beings? Why would the sick mother's life take precedence over the healthy fetus's life? What kind if twisted logic is used to decide that?



Again, it is the anti-abortionists who not only dehumanize the fetus but lower the value of human life, in general. What convoluted logic is used to come to the conclusion that regardless of the cause of the mother's problems the fetus (a human being, according to them) is automatically chosen for execution?

I keep repeating this and, hopefully, it will sink in. Apply that logic to any other situation. Choose any group of people and apply that perverted argument.

Let's use an example. Let's say two people are admitted to hospital at the very same time with the very same injury and the hospital had a policy that stated white people are to be attended to first. Would that be acceptable?

Let's say two people are awaiting kidney transplants. Both critical. Both requiring the same blood type. A kidney arrives suitable for both but the hospital has a policy that stipulates Catholics are to be helped before Jews. Would that be acceptable?

That is exactly the principals anti-abortionist policy is based on. They start out with the misguided belief an embryo/fetus is a human being and then they end up having to subvert society's core beliefs to accommodate their absurd position.

An exception here. An exclusion there.

And just who decides how high the stakes are? 50% chance the mother will die? 75%? 35%? And how much permanent damage is acceptable? Is the destruction of one kidney permissible considering she has two?

It appears by your adamant defense of embryos/fetuses you have given this serious thought. Or am I being too generous in my assumptions? I'll find out when reading your reply.
Click to expand...

There's nothing arbitrary about considering and in-utero baby a human being. Nor does it mean that all human beings are in utero babies.

Your minds is a mass of senseless goo.
Click to expand...
 
Sometimes in rough situations we make hard choices, that doesn't necessarily mean someone has been dehumanized or second classed.
 
apple0154 said:
"Absolutely! To arbitrarily designate something a human being automatically defines all other human beings as being the same as that which has been designated as such. "

Again, IT IS NOT ARBITRARY. It is scientifically proven that from conception the child is both human and alive (which means it exists) Thus the child is a human being. Period.


"I know they aren't. My point is who are they to arbitrarily decide who dies assuming both are human beings? Why would the sick mother's life take precedence over the healthy fetus's life? What kind if twisted logic is used to decide that? "

AGAIN, Her life does not automatically take precedence. That is simply a strawman you are creating. The mother would CHOOSE.

"Again, it is the anti-abortionists who not only dehumanize the fetus but lower the value of human life, in general. What convoluted logic is used to come to the conclusion that regardless of the cause of the mother's problems the fetus (a human being, according to them) is automatically chosen for execution? "

This is simply absurd. Pro-life individuals VALUE life. They think the unborn child should have EQUAL protection. So please EXPLAIN how it is you think they dehumanize the fetus. You have said this multiple times now. Care to explain? Again, the child is not automatically chosen to die. The only time the childs life is dehumanized is when some abortion nut decides it isn't a 'human being' and thus it is ok to kill it.

"I keep repeating this and, hopefully, it will sink in. Apply that logic to any other situation. Choose any group of people and apply that perverted argument. "

LMAO... you have not displayed anything that resembles logic. You have built the worst strawmen in the history of the world.



.
Click to expand...

You are truly an awful troll.
 
Superfreak said:
Again, IT IS NOT ARBITRARY. It is scientifically proven that from conception the child is both human and alive (which means it exists) Thus the child is a human being. Period.
Click to expand...

Actually, the bible says that life is in the blood and scientifically, the fetus isn't infused with blood until around the 18th day after conception. So one could conceivably believe that life doesn't begin until the 18th day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top