APP - Pro-choicer kills anti-abortionist

usaloyal2theend said:
Being obtuse lost it's luster with you back on the WOT, Apple.

You chose your screenname well. The fruit that would jump-start the "process" of the demise of mankind, in the Biblical sense...
Click to expand...

When it comes to the Bible let's remember Exodus, chapter 21:

"22": If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"23": And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

"24": Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

The concern was for the woman's health, not her "fruit". They didn't have the technology to determine if any damage occurred to the premmie. Nerve damage, lack of oxygen, internal damage resulting in a weak arm or leg or blindness.......because they couldn't access damage to the premmie the punishment refers to damage to the woman.

As for being obtuse, my apologies, however I do not know the legal definition of "simple assault" which is why I recently requested clarification.
 
Southern Man said:
After the baby is born it's still dependent on others- can't be apart from others. I guess it's OK to kill them then too.
Click to expand...

Yes, dependent on others but not dependent on one specific individual. We are all dependent on others; from the local grocer to the person who adjusts the traffic lights.

No one is obliged to give their body to someone else to use. That is the basis on which our society functions.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
are you saying that responsible, mature, compassionate people should kill them instead?.....
Click to expand...

There's no killing. It's "born...die". Not "conceived...die".

a person needs to be conceived before she can be born....and the moment of conception is when we can be scientifically identified, by means of DNA analysis, as an individual.....different from father, different from mother, different from any other human individual......
Click to expand...

Scientific definitions/identification is just one way to describe something. We come back to the chicken/egg or acorn/oak tree.

If a grocer advertised tomatoes at a dollar/dozen and handed out tomato seeds he'd be fined for false advertising. Why? According to DNA they are the same thing so should he be allowed to do that?
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, dependent on others but not dependent on one specific individual. We are all dependent on others; from the local grocer to the person who adjusts the traffic lights.

No one is obliged to give their body to someone else to use. That is the basis on which our society functions.
Click to expand...
The captain of a boat can therefore toss his passengers overboard since they all rely completely on him for their lives while on board.
 
apple0154 said:
There's no killing. It's "born...die". Not "conceived...die".
Click to expand...
of course there is killing......there is "alive" followed by "dead"....you can't deny that the unborn are alive......

Scientific definitions/identification is just one way to describe something. We come back to the chicken/egg or acorn/oak tree.
Click to expand...
false comparisons....we have zygote/egg as well.....and both an acorn and a tree are oak, just at different stages of development....as are a fetus and an octogenarian....

If a grocer advertised tomatoes at a dollar/dozen and handed out tomato seeds he'd be fined for false advertising. Why? According to DNA they are the same thing so should he be allowed to do that?
Click to expand...

and if he handed out pumpkin seeds instead, would they still be tomato seeds?.......will a human fetus ever change into a wildebeast?......
 
apple0154 said:
Women seeking an abortion are seeking to have the fetus removed and considering the bodies belong to the women in question that is their right.
Click to expand...
That's your bottom line right there: a baby is simply a possession, and can be bought, sold or disposed off at the whim of its owner.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
of course there is killing......there is "alive" followed by "dead"....you can't deny that the unborn are alive......

false comparisons....we have zygote/egg as well.....and both an acorn and a tree are oak, just at different stages of development....as are a fetus and an octogenarian....

and if he handed out pumpkin seeds instead, would they still be tomato seeds?.......will a human fetus ever change into a wildebeast?......
Click to expand...

While a zygote is alive it is not a human being. As for different stages of development that's the whole point. Developing ---> becoming. Not "is".

And let's not forget over 50% of fertilized eggs , so-called human beings, spontaneously abort. There is less than a 50% chance the egg will become a human being. And when eggs and zygoes and embryos spontaneously abort, when a so-called human being dies, what do we do?

Is there an investigation? Do we interrogate the woman? Or do we just say, "Oh well. Maybe next time."

And when a woman has a defective body do we try to save the healthy so-called human being or does the woman's health and life automatically come first?

I suggest those who are gung-ho on granting person-hood to something that isn't a person realize the same approach can be taken with a bonafide human being.

If a woman can kill what is considered a human being, her offspring, then what is to stop her from killing that offspring after birth? If a woman with a defective body can kill her offspring to save her own life then let's extrapolate that reasoning.

Let's say a mother and her 10 year old son are standing on the balcony of an old, burning building waiting for the fire department. The balcony can not support the weight of both human beings. It should follow she has the right to push her son off the balcony to his certain death.

In both cases, pregnancy and the balcony, her offspring is doing nothing wrong but by killing her son she has a good chance of saving her own life.

By classifying a zygote/embryo/fetus as a human being while allowing a woman with a defective body to kill it can we possibly further cheapen what it means to be a human being?

Over 50% of human beings die before birth which garners little more than a footnote on a medical file and a person with a defective body is permitted to kill healthy human beings.

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
 
apple0154 said:
While a zygote is alive it is not a human being. As for different stages of development that's the whole point. Developing ---> becoming. Not "is".
Click to expand...
it isn't developing into a "human being" it's developing into an adult....

And let's not forget over 50% of fertilized eggs , so-called human beings, spontaneously abort. There is less than a 50% chance the egg will become a human being. And when eggs and zygoes and embryos spontaneously abort, when a so-called human being dies, what do we do?
Click to expand...
those that I have known who have gone through miscarriages have mourned....

And when a woman has a defective body do we try to save the healthy so-called human being or does the woman's health and life automatically come first?
Click to expand...
obviously you would go with the mother...that doesn't mean what's lost is something less....

If a woman can kill what is considered a human being, her offspring, then what is to stop her from killing that offspring after birth? If a woman with a defective body can kill her offspring to save her own life then let's extrapolate that reasoning.

Let's say a mother and her 10 year old son are standing on the balcony of an old, burning building waiting for the fire department. The balcony can not support the weight of both human beings. It should follow she has the right to push her son off the balcony to his certain death.

In both cases, pregnancy and the balcony, her offspring is doing nothing wrong but by killing her son she has a good chance of saving her own life.

By classifying a zygote/embryo/fetus as a human being while allowing a woman with a defective body to kill it can we possibly further cheapen what it means to be a human being?
Click to expand...
I don't think you can further cheapen what it means to be a human being than by denying that a human being IS a human being....

Over 50% of human beings die before birth which garners little more than a footnote on a medical file and a person with a defective body is permitted to kill healthy human beings.

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?
Click to expand...
so you think that is worse than a society in which a perfectly healthy woman is permitted to kill an perfectly healthy unborn child?......you already live in a society worse than that you propose in your argument......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously you would go with the mother...that doesn't mean what's lost is something less....
Click to expand...

What is obvious about classifying something as a human being, a healthy one no less, and then killing it because another human being has a defective body?

I don't think you can further cheapen what it means to be a human being than by denying that a human being IS a human being......
Click to expand...

If that were the case but some people believe we can designate something which is not a human being as a human being and then designate the group to which it belongs as second class citizens.

Second class citizens. A little less human? A little less important? Equal but different. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

so you think that is worse than a society in which a perfectly healthy woman is permitted to kill an perfectly healthy unborn child?......you already live in a society worse than that you propose in your argument......
Click to expand...

Not quite. We have lived in the type of society you propose. A society where certain human beings were considered a little less human. Where one group was more important. Different. Whose life was worth more. The result was a civil war and a world war. We know all about having two classes of human beings.

As you stated at the beginning obviously we would side with the life of the woman. The reason it's obvious is because the other is not a human being. It is a fetus. That argument alone tells us those who propose classifying a fetus as a human either never thought it through or have such disregard for human life it's barely comprehensible.

Simply stated the life of a human being belonging to a group known as "mothers" is always, unquestionably understood to be worth more than a human being belonging to a group known as "fetuses".

The most charitable thing I can say is folks who propose such an idea have a poor grasp of history.
 
it is past for our nuts to start killing your nuts

fanatics killing fanatics is evolution in action

the problem is that your fanatics kill useful people while our fanatics kill useless people
 
AssHatZombie said:
Fetus = tiny human being.
Click to expand...

Fetus perhaps, but zygot no.

I have no porblem with early abortions. Later ones now are another matter.
But then I do not have to make that decision now do I? And I do not feel it is right for me to make that decision for others either.

Nuff said on abortion.
 
apple0154 said:
What is obvious about classifying something as a human being, a healthy one no less, and then killing it because another human being has a defective body?
Click to expand...
???....so you would kill the mother?.....

If that were the case but some people believe we can designate something which is not a human being as a human being and then designate the group to which it belongs as second class citizens.

Second class citizens. A little less human? A little less important? Equal but different. Hmmm, where have I heard that before?
Click to expand...

I don't understand, why would you assume that all aborted children would have been liberals?....

Not quite. We have lived in the type of society you propose. A society where certain human beings were considered a little less human. Where one group was more important. Different. Whose life was worth more. The result was a civil war and a world war. We know all about having two classes of human beings.
Click to expand...
I know of one class of human beings....what is the second class you are proposing....right now I know we live in a society where you feel free to kill any unborn child you wish.....regardless of anyone's health....

As you stated at the beginning obviously we would side with the life of the woman. The reason it's obvious is because the other is not a human being. It is a fetus. That argument alone tells us those who propose classifying a fetus as a human either never thought it through or have such disregard for human life it's barely comprehensible.
Click to expand...
no, that argument tells us you are a fool....the reason is obvious because the mother is an adult, a wife, perhaps a mother with other children depending on her...

now....we've played your little game...let's be honest....you don't give a fuck whether the mother is sick or not.....you want her to be able to kill her unborn child anyway, correct?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top