Originally posted by Bardock42So you are saying animals have the same rights of humans ?
Well i suppose they do....point? I mean animals are killed that are actually alive...what'S the big difference?You are right...not your business.
Also I can not go down the block and kill a dog..I would get in trouble.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
Oh I've seen AC'c question now and its some ludicrous drivel comparing a foetus to blue prints.... The DNA is the blueprint a foetus is when the building has started or do you think a bay is made instantly at birth. What a strange question 😕 Glad I could answer it.
No you're wrong, you got my idea wrong. That's not why I'm asking and it's not why I'm comparing. When someone answers it, I'll deal with it accordingly.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI answered your question whether you liked it or not. You CAN NOT compare something alive to something that not is ALIVE.
Bardock, stop giving him avenues to dodge my question please.He's dodging it and I'll either get an answer or make it more apparant that he's dodging.
This is funny. Just answer the question, you didn't, you dodged it because you don't like the comparison, which is tough.
Answer it or I'll consider it dodged:
"Blueprints will turn into a house, does burning them constitute arson?
Yes or no?"
-AC
Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
I answered your question whether you liked it or not. You CAN NOT compare something alive to something that not is ALIVE.
You dislike the comparison, tough. Answer it:
"Blueprints will turn into a house, does burning them constitute arson?
Yes or no?"
I'm being civil, answer. Does the burning of house blueprints equal arson or not?
-AC
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
You compared a foetus to a set of plans your analogy was laughable and thus destroyed.
Nope, you got the comparison wrong. Stop diving in, remember what we said about assumptions?
Cyber: Is burning house blueprints, to you, arson? Forget the comparison if it makes it easier for you. Imagine it as a separate question.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Nope, you got the comparison wrong. Stop diving in, remember what we said about assumptions?Cyber: Is burning house blueprints, to you, arson? Forget the comparison if it makes it easier for you. Imagine it as a separate question.
-AC
So whats this question asking then? 😂 Seems to be comparing a foetus to a set of plans to me.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bardock, stop giving him avenues to dodge my question please.He's dodging it and I'll either get an answer or make it more apparant that he's dodging.
This is funny. Just answer the question, you didn't, you dodged it because you don't like the comparison, which is tough.
Answer it or I'll consider it dodged:
"Blueprints will turn into a house, does burning them constitute arson?
Yes or no?"
-AC
😂
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well it's not, so is everyone gonna stop being chickens and trying to second guess my question or is someone going to have the balls to answer it with a yes or a no?-AC
Well what is it doing? - Leading questions without context are not how debates are instigated, thats why you couldn't use them in court.
You can consider what you want dodged a foetus is not a blueprint, DNA is a blueprint a foetus is the foundations if you like although I would say the whole analogy is incredibly ill thought out and simplistic.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You gonna answer it Whirly?It's relevant, if someone answers it. I'll be waiting for either you or CN to stop being insecure.
Someone, anyone, answer it.
-AC
No as the whole analogy is pointless, however I have a question for you.
Do you consider a foetus to be merely a blueprint?
Originally posted by Grand Moff Gav
No it doesn't BUT if you destroy the building blocks and supplys then THATS a crime, even if they arn't a house yet!
Bingo! "No it doesn't" as in no, it doesn't constitute arson, correct? Exactly. Now watch me factually prove why abortion is not killing a baby:
Cyber Ninja said "Fetus will become a baby" right? Which would mean that currently, a foetus is NOT a baby. Therefore, killing it does not equate to killing a baby.
Burning blueprints and killing a foetus are NOT the same, but either way the final product (house and baby respectively) cannot come to be.
If a house isn't created, arson cannot be committed. So if a baby isn't created a baby cannot be killed.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bingo! "No it doesn't" as in no, it doesn't constitute arson, correct? Exactly. Now watch me factually prove why abortion is not killing a baby:Cyber Ninja said "Fetus will become a baby" right? Which would mean that currently, a foetus is NOT a baby. Therefore, killing it does not equate to killing a baby.
Burning blueprints and killing a foetus are NOT the same, but either way the final product (house and baby respectively) cannot come to be.
If a house isn't created, arson cannot be committed. So if a baby isn't created a baby cannot be killed.
-AC
You right. 100%
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Bingo! "No it doesn't" as in no, it doesn't constitute arson, correct? Exactly. Now watch me factually prove why abortion is not killing a baby:Cyber Ninja said "Fetus will become a baby" right? Which would mean that currently, a foetus is NOT a baby. Therefore, killing it does not equate to killing a baby.
Burning blueprints and killing a foetus are NOT the same, but either way the final product (house and baby respectively) cannot come to be.
If a house isn't created, arson cannot be committed. So if a baby isn't created a baby cannot be killed.
-AC
So you were comparing a foetus to a blueprint as we thought. 😂
A foetus is not a blueprint, it is a semi built has and you disregard most of Gavs statement. DNA is a blue print.