1 Child vs 1,000 Embryos

Originally posted by Robtard
As noted above, it's why someone can kill another person and they could get off free, life in prison or something in between; we don't have just one sentence for killing a person, there are many factors. Same applies to other laws obvs. I do like how you're back to exposing your true motive of always blanket blaming the woman as "dumb and irresponsible". Anyhow, intent.

Intent, lawfulness and unlawfulness say otherwise. That's how the legal system works.

The only one trying to dictate something here is you, sport.

And as I am noting now: it's either a life or not. Intent doesn't matter there. It is either a life or not.

Intent doesn't come into play as to whether or not it's a life lol.

Obviously for the sake of the argument the embryos are alive and viable and there's no personal familial attachment to either, the child isn't your nephew, an embryo isn't your son etc.

Originally posted by Bentley
This is also why I don't see the point of "engaging one's self" to an specific answer. For all you know I kill kids on my spare time for the lols.

If the argument is valid and relevant it'll remain so disregarding who among the audience sides with it or against it.

Well considering it's your stance, it's kinda hard to take yourself, out of the equation. lol

I'm pro-life in the sense that I think you should be responsible for the life you created barring some of the circumstances mentioned. I just won't go as far as forcing someone to give up their free-will to bend to ideals which is why pro-choice doesn't bother me.

Originally posted by Surtur
And as I am noting now: it's either a life or not. Intent doesn't matter there. It is either a life or not.

Intent doesn't come into play as to whether or not it's a life lol.

Already covered and countered, so I'll just repost:

Originally posted by Robtard
The point: Intent factors in when something is a crime or is not a crime or is a lesser crime or is a greater crime. It's why a person can kill another person and get off free or life in prison or something in between. Your myopia won't change that.

So you're just going to have to keep your gut-punching of pregnant women fetish as a fantasy. Maybe write your congressman.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously for the sake of the argument the embryos are alive and viable and there's no personal familial attachment to either, the child isn't your nephew, an embryo isn't your son etc.

And I don't care lol. I wasn't talking about the argument, I was talking about what I do not like about some pro choicers when you quoted me.

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

But you didn't counter it lol. Intent does not matter in determining whether or not it is a life. How many times do I need to repeat this: intent does not matter in determining if it's a life. If it was a life and was killed you could talk about intent, we are discussing IF it's a life. Holy shit. How is this hard?

I am not even talking about legalities, I am talking about points of view. Continue to rant about intent if you need to, but it's not defeating any actual argument.

Originally posted by Surtur
And I don't care lol. I wasn't talking about the argument, I was talking about what I do not like about some pro choicers when you quoted me.

That post wasn't to you, sport. Calm down.

Originally posted by Surtur
But you didn't counter it lol. Intent does not matter in determining whether or not it is a life. How many times do I need to repeat this: intent does not matter in determining if it's a life. If it was a life and was killed you could talk about intent, we are discussing IF it's a life. Holy shit. How is this hard?

I am not even talking about legalities, I am talking about points of view. Continue to rant about intent if you need to, but it's not defeating any actual argument.

If intent doesn't matter than killing someone is either a crime or it's not, one punishment for everything or none at all. Using your black and white view here. But that's not the case in reality. We have varying degrees of what is or isn't a crime and varying degrees how how severe same crimes can be. You're done here, go take a nap or something.

And I am calm lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
Obviously for the sake of the argument the embryos are alive and viable and there's no personal familial attachment to either, the child isn't your nephew, an embryo isn't your son etc.

Then they are not fitting into a vial.

Regardless, they are alive sure, but I agree with the Sci-fi writer in that it is not the same as an already born child. So, I'm still picking the child.

Originally posted by Robtard
If intent doesn't matter than killing someone is either a crime or it's not, one punishment for everything or none at all. Using your black and white view here. But that's not the case in reality. We have varying degrees of what is or isn't a crime and varying degrees how how severe same crimes can be. You're done here, go take a nap or something.

Dude, intent doesn't matter in determining if it's a life. I never said it doesn't matter in determining a crime. How is this hard to get?

Originally posted by socool8520
Then they are not fitting into a vial.

Regardless, they are alive sure, but I agree with the Sci-fi writer in that it is not the same as an already born child. So, I'm still picking the child.

As would everyone, or thereabouts. But you're also not likely one of those "life starts at conception; there is no difference between a a newly fertilized egg and a born baby." types, so the scenario does not pose the moral dilemma the writer posed. The writer is specifically targeting people with that mindset.

Originally posted by Robtard
As would everyone, or thereabouts. But you're also not likely one of those "life starts at conception; there is no difference between a a newly fertilized egg and a born baby." types, so the scenario does not pose the moral dilemma the writer posed. The writer is specifically targeting people with that mindset.

Fair enough.

If you do seem them as such, which doesn't make sense to me, then you would logically, and morally save the embryos.

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

Don't ya love it when Robbie gets all "Scientific" like that!?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]When does "IT" aka The embryo/baby become an Actual human? Pre or Post Birth?

The Left seems to have probs with this question. [/B]

It is not that those who are Pro-Choice struggle to answer the question of when personhood begins, so much as they do not see it as relevant.

Those who are Pro-Life are operating under the mistaken belief that if they can establish personhood before birth, abortion will no longer be legally permissible.

However, the Pro-Choice position has always been that the issue of abortion is a balancing of the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus.

Abortion was legalized when the U.S. Supreme Court found a medical right to privacy in the Constitution.

Meaning, that the government does not have a right to know that a woman is pregnant, let alone intercede in any medical procedure that would affect that pregnancy.

Even if it was established that personhood begins at conception tomorrow, abortion would remain legal on this basis.

The notion that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to reverse itself, and find that a right it previously found in the constitution no longer exists is a pipe dream.

Especially, when that right extends to so many other things than just abortion.

If Pro-Lifers actually cared about ending abortion, then would work with Pro-Choicers on ways to reduce the numbers of them, instead of waging a pointless crusade to ban them outright.

Originally posted by socool8520
Fair enough.

If you do seem them as such, which doesn't make sense to me, then you would logically, and morally save the embryos.

One would think, but I guarantee you 99.999% of "life beings at conception" anti-abortionist would carry the five year old child and leave the embryos, thereby shitting on their own anti-abortion argument. Which was writer's point.

Cos if all human life is equal, you save the 1,000 over the 1, barring no familial/emotional connections.

Originally posted by Surtur
And as I am noting now: it's either a life or not. Intent doesn't matter there. It is either a life or not.

Intent doesn't come into play as to whether or not it's a life lol.

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.

So in Robbie's "SCIENTIFIC" View Point. An Embryo is fully capable of becoming a Full Human all on its own?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If Pro-Lifers actually cared about ending abortion, then would work with Pro-Choicers on ways to reduce the numbers of them, instead of waging a pointless crusade to ban them outright.

That is the one thing that boggles the mind, they're the ones more likely to be against sexual education in schools and free or ease of access contraception, two things that do in fact lower abortion rates. One would think that even if you find learning about sex and being on the pill to be wrong, it is still better than more abortions.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Adam, did you feel you proved a point? I'm saying intent doesn't matter in determining whether or not it's a life.

How does your cat scenario have anything to do with that? Am I only determining if it's a cat or not depending on if some dipshit shoots it or if I euthanize it?