1 Child vs 1,000 Embryos

Originally posted by Surtur
But he didn't though, because I am talking about determining whether or not it's a life, NOT intent lol. So how does it prove a point?

He did explicitly address the "is it life" in his second line. So you're being dishonest because you can't properly retort his points. Everyone can see it.

HYG, see:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did, and you are too stupid to recognize it.

No one is denying that the fetus is a life, any more than anyone is denying that your cat is a living thing.

In one scenario, it is legally permissible to kill it, and in another, it is not.

The difference is contextual, and part of that context is intent.

Your veterinarian may legally euthanize your cat with your permission, just as a doctor may legally terminate a pregnancy with the permission of the woman.

But your neighbor cannot legally shoot your cat in the head with a pistol, any more than an assailant can legally punch a pregnant woman in the stomach.

The only excuse I can think of for Adam is he quoted my post about cars, a car is property. That was in response to Rob's retarded "breaking car windows" scenario.

So this was never truly about intent, as I have said multiple times now. As was said in the original post Rob quoted that began this chain of conversations. Did we need another 3-4 pages worth of posts to really confirm that or no?

Originally posted by Surtur
But you didn't prove a point, nice try.

Sure I did. No one argued that intent determines personhood. Rather, that intent determines consequence, personhood notwithstanding. You did not understand that, and made a dumb argument, the dumbness of which I illustrated for you thusly.

Originally posted by Robtard
He did explicitly address the "is it life" in his second line. So you're being dishonest because you can't properly retort his points. Everyone can see it.

HYG, see:

And holy shit Rob, again I AM TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO SAY IT IS NOT LIFE. How is this hard? Did you eat paint chips as a child?

You were able to process that this dipstick of an author was talking only to a *certain* kind of pro lifers, but you can't grasp this?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sure I did. No one argued that intent determines personhood. Rather, that intent determines consequence, personhood notwithstanding. You did not understand that, and made a dumb argument, the dumbness of which I illustrated for you thusly.

But people KEPT spewing the garbage about intent, when I was clearly talking about determining life. I said this. Multiple. Times.

Who is saying an embryo or fetus isn't "life". Seems like another imagined enemy you've created.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who is saying an embryo or fetus isn't "life". Seems like another imagined enemy you've created.

*smh* I was talking about arguments I've seen from the pro choice side. Yes, I have seen some pro choicers justify being pro choice because they believe they are not ending a life.

EDIT: And holy shit even if you want to believe I just created it...I still said what I meant multiple times lol.

Originally posted by Robtard

[QUOTE=16371504]Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed yeah, I'm pro choice. I just don't like the fact there are some pro choicers who seem to think whether or not it's a life depends on the circumstances of its demise.

Well Surtur, if you take a hammer to your car's windows and smash em all out, that's not a crime. If someone else does it to your car, it's a crime(vandalism) and they can/will be charged.

By your logic, I should be able to smash up your car without repercussion simply because you can. But I can't, because we have legal factors like intent, lawful and unlawfulness in the real world. [/QUOTE]

^ This answered the question perfectly. It is not that the circumstances determine whether it is a life, but whether is a crime.

You got so hung up on cars being inanimate objects, that I reframed the argument with living things:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Fine. Your cat is a living thing. You can take your cat to the veterinarian and have it euthanized, but your neighbor cannot shoot in the head with a pistol.

And Adam, I never said intent doesn't. I was talking about determining a life. So, failure.

And shhh no, whatever clever quip you think you have..it's irrelevant, I don't care.

Originally posted by Surtur
*smh* I was talking about arguments I've seen from the pro choice side. Yes, I have seen some pro choicers justify being pro choice because they believe they are not ending a life.

EDIT: And holy shit even if you want to believe I just created it...I still said what I meant multiple times lol.

So you're arguing against something no one actually made. We covered that.

Originally posted by Surtur
And Adam, I never said intent doesn't. I was talking about determining a life. So, failure.

And shhh no, whatever clever quip you think you have..it's irrelevant, I don't care.

IOW: "I can no longer dance about with my silly arguments so I'm going to call it a victory."

Originally posted by Surtur
And Adam, I never said intent doesn't. I was talking about determining a life. So, failure.

You must have missed the part where everyone told you that your understanding of the argument is wrong, because no one is arguing that:

Originally posted by Robtard
Who is saying an embryo or fetus isn't "life". Seems like another imagined enemy you've created.

I never said people on this forum made it lol. Holy shit how is this hard ti get? Are you so desperate for a pretend win Rob? Okay man, you win. Victory, you can claim it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You must have missed the part where everyone told you that your understanding of the argument is wrong, because no one is arguing that:

And I never said people here made it. I hate to keep taking away your "gotchas" and stuff, like I feel bad, but damn. I would suggest quitting while you're ahead.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still nobody can answer the simple question of which they would save, but all of them are pretend-winning the shit out this. cowards.

I answered it. Why did it get ignored? Also, why are people so scared of answering it?

Originally posted by socool8520
Lol. I answered it. I'd save the child. I'm pretty sure DDM answered it as well.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is the only one who answered it honestly, and with any principled consistency. Everyone else is just dancing.

Thank you!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You must have missed the part where everyone told you that your understanding of the argument is wrong, because no one is arguing that:

Notice that so many of his issues hang on a scenario where a woman has what he imagines to be power over a man. It's a big issue with him.

Originally posted by Robtard
Already covered and countered, so I'll just repost:

Hey, now, this is my schtick! 😠

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said people on this forum made it lol. Holy shit how is this hard ti get? Are you so desperate for a pretend win Rob? Okay man, you win. Victory, you can claim it.

I never said it was limited to this forum. I am sure someone somewhere at sometime has argued that since an embryo or a fetus is not a person, no person is killed by terminating a pregnancy; no harm, no foul. But that same person is not likely arguing for stricter penalties for causing a miscarriage either.

That is usually the purview of Pro-Lifers, who not only hold that an embryo or fetus is a "pre-born" person, but who try to use such enhanced penalties as a legal maneuver to bestow "personhood" rights to embryos and fetuses through the backdoor.

It does not change, however, that context is the reason for the disparate treatment under the law, and not personhood.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I never said it was limited to this forum. I am sure someone somewhere at sometime has argued that since an embryo or a fetus is not a person, no person is killed by terminating a pregnancy; no harm, no foul. But that same person is not likely arguing for stricter penalties for causing a miscarriage either.

That is usually the purview of Pro-Lifers, who not only hold that an embryo or fetus is a "pre-born" person, but who try to use such enhanced penalties as a legal maneuver to bestow "personhood" rights to embryos and fetuses through the backdoor.

It does not change, however, that context is the reason for the disparate treatment under the law, and not personhood.

And again, nothing you said changes that I wasn't talking about content or intent lol.

So yeah, good talk, you didn't say a thing, I didn't say a thing. Both of us did not say things. 👆

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thank you!

👆

Originally posted by dadudemon
Hey, now, this is my schtick! 😠

To be fair when you do it...an actual *valid* point tends to follow. So he has yet to copy you perfectly.