Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm really about freedom of choice and protecting "human" life. I'm not about advancing and protecting my own personal agenda. Pro killing homo's, retards, and cripples really is "Pro life", because I'm insuring the advancement of the most "evolved" forms of life, by weeding out all life from the gene pool that is clearly dependant upon another life to sustain/advance it.
Hmm, aren't Pro-Lifers against abortion?
Great sarcasm, your wit and intelligence really comes through.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm not a hypocrite at all. I'm actually starting to agree with yours and Captain Fantastic's wise positions Adam. I'm starting to believe in this whole "survival of the fittest" evolutionary doctrine that you both seem to adhere to and dogmatically profess.
That is not our position at all:
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, the argument is that the rights of existent persons are paramount to the rights of non-existent or "potential" persons.
Therefore, this attempts to argue a point that no one made:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm thinking the next logical step, when it comes to evolving humanity, is to terminate all life that is "dependant" upon others to sustain/advance it.Homosexual behavior doesn't advance a culture, and really is quite parasitic in it's nature. Homo's are dependant upon "heterosexual" processes to advance their kind. And homosexuality doesn't offer any type of social benefits to a society. Since these "organisms" are dependant upon us hetero's to survive and advance them, we have the right to say whether or not they should be able to live or die.
Cripples and retards are also dependant upon others to take care of them as well. I'm tired of having all of this money taken out of my paycheck, to support some dink who can't provide for themselves. So yeah, logically, us able bodied citizens should have the right to say whether or not these "organisms" should be able to live or die as well.
I know some of you people might think I'm selfish or cruel for believing in such things, but I'm actually not thinking about myself, I'm thinking about "human" rights. And based on the way I define life; homo's, retards and cripples are clearly not "human."
I'm really about freedom of choice and protecting "human" life. I'm not about advancing and protecting my own personal agenda. Pro killing homo's, retards, and cripples really is "Pro life", because I'm insuring the advancement of the most "evolved" forms of life, by weeding out all life from the gene pool that is clearly dependant upon another life to sustain/advance it.
Only those who can take care of themselves and are classified as the most evolved forms of life, should have the right to "choose" who lives or dies, and who they do/do not want depending upon them.
Moreover, is advocating the extermination of "cripples, retards, and homos" what the Baby Jesus™ would do? Would the Baby Jesus™ ever call someone a "cripple," "retard," or "homo"? You have demonstrated some real Christ-like behavior in this thread. The Baby Jesus™ would be proud of you.
Wow I thought was interesting honestly yuck but it happens
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060328/ap_on_he_me/pakistan_fetus_in_baby
Thats some seriously crazy yahoo news!
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not like you or I, fact. We are human beings. So the conclusion to be drawn is that it's not a human. Infact, why are you even keeping up this anal pretense that it could be a human? It is provable and I have proven as much. You sitting there refusing to admit it doesn't equate to me not proving it. Which is what I've just now realised you are doing.We don't agree that it's separate. It's not separate in any way until it's born and the cord is cut. All this "That's where the unknown is" nonsense, it's all for nought. Reason being is that you and I are humans, complete humans. A CELL (it's a cellular organism, a CELLULAR ORGANISM) does not have any of that. All it has is the DNA to BECOME what we are if left unchecked. Ergo, if it has what it takes to BECOME what we are, it cannot BE what we are at the same time.
This is what people are foolishly overlooking. "It has the potential to be, the parts to be, so it is."
Stupid rhetoric.
-AC
Are you and I the only human beings? I've seen people who were basically born without a brain (they had enough to support the autonomic systems, breathing, digestion, etc). Where they human? If not why keep them alive for years on end? And you still haven't proven anything. I can say no as much as you can say yes, the difference being that I am right. Where is your empirical evidence?
I suppose I'll throw a bone to you, It isn't a human the way that you define it. Is your definition the only possible one? Absolutely not!
Not alive and separate until the cord is cut? So it's ok to kill it if the cord hasn't been cut yet? Aside from location what's the difference between the kid the day before birth and the day after?
And of course they're separate in as I said "at least some way". They have different DNA. Unless of course you're arguing that a tapeworm is part of someone who foolishly ate something down in certain 3rd world countries (using your parasite argument there, still don't agree with it, but it does illustrate a point).
summary - mother and child are different entities. It is only arbitrarily, not factually, define the entity we call the fetus, zygote, whatever, until quite late in the pregnancy.
You have no proof, just an arbitrary definition. I could throw those out too, but I don't see a point. 😛
Originally posted by debbiejo
Strange story, kinda like a story about a partial fetus thing growing on a mans brain in the form of a tumor.
Completely off topic, but interesting. I haven't heard of actual feus..feti - what would the plural be anyway? - actually growing outside a womb (with the exception of absorbed twins like in this case). I have heard of cell differentiation in tumors - teeth, hair, all kinds of weird stuff. Gross ain't it.
😘 😘
Originally posted by docb77
Are you and I the only human beings? I've seen people who were basically born without a brain (they had enough to support the autonomic systems, breathing, digestion, etc). Where they human? If not why keep them alive for years on end?
I actually find that to be pretty cruel. Keeping someone alive if they're just going to be a vegetable.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I actually find that to be pretty cruel. Keeping someone alive if they're just going to be a vegetable.
Honestly, I kind of agree on that one (just an example to illustrate the flexibility of the term human), but I'm pretty sure you'd be tried for murder if you tried to "put them out of their misery."
Originally posted by docb77
Are you and I the only human beings? I've seen people who were basically born without a brain (they had enough to support the autonomic systems, breathing, digestion, etc). Where they human? If not why keep them alive for years on end? And you still haven't proven anything. I can say no as much as you can say yes, the difference being that I am right. Where is your empirical evidence?I suppose I'll throw a bone to you, It isn't a human the way that [b]you
define it. Is your definition the only possible one? Absolutely not!Not alive and separate until the cord is cut? So it's ok to kill it if the cord hasn't been cut yet? Aside from location what's the difference between the kid the day before birth and the day after?
And of course they're separate in as I said "at least some way". They have different DNA. Unless of course you're arguing that a tapeworm is part of someone who foolishly ate something down in certain 3rd world countries (using your parasite argument there, still don't agree with it, but it does illustrate a point).
summary - mother and child are different entities. It is only arbitrarily, not factually, define the entity we call the fetus, zygote, whatever, until quite late in the pregnancy.
You have no proof, just an arbitrary definition. I could throw those out too, but I don't see a point. 😛 [/B]
A tick cannot live without a source of food/sustinance. Should we remove the tick so arbitrarily? It might becaome a super-tick, with thoughts and feelings.
Originally posted by docb77
Are you and I the only human beings? I've seen people who were basically born without a brain (they had enough to support the autonomic systems, breathing, digestion, etc). Where they human? If not why keep them alive for years on end? And you still haven't proven anything. I can say no as much as you can say yes, the difference being that I am right. Where is your empirical evidence?
Where's my difference? In the previous post where I said people with the abilities to do all those things, be it artificial or not. A cell doesn't have any of those, nor is it even possible for it to have any of those.
Fake heart, fake lung, it doesn't matter. It's still a human body with the ability to adapt to and use those tools. A cell doesn't. Bam.
Originally posted by docb77
I suppose I'll throw a bone to you, It isn't a human the way that [b]you define it. Is your definition the only possible one? Absolutely not! [/b]
No, it's just not a human. I've proven it and you're ignoring it. I'm not going to sit here trying to make you admit it because you've obviously chosen not to and chosen the very silly path of devil's advocate.
Originally posted by docb77
Not alive and separate until the cord is cut? So it's ok to kill it if the cord hasn't been cut yet? Aside from location what's the difference between the kid the day before birth and the day after?
Nothing. Which is exactly why I'm of the belief that it's entirely up to the female what she does with it.
Originally posted by docb77
And of course they're separate in as I said "at least some way". They have different DNA. Unless of course you're arguing that a tapeworm is part of someone who foolishly ate something down in certain 3rd world countries (using your parasite argument there, still don't agree with it, but it does illustrate a point).
What does a foetus do? Does it, or does it not, live as a result of a host and live as a result of being sustained by that host?
Originally posted by docb77
summary - mother and child are different entities. It is only arbitrarily, not factually, define the entity we call the fetus, zygote, whatever, until quite late in the pregnancy.
It's not a foetus until the end of the eighth week. It's a zygote before this.
Therefore, the is no human life at conception. Come on, it's not rocket science.
Originally posted by docb77
You have no proof, just an arbitrary definition. I could throw those out too, but I don't see a point. 😛
It's not that you don't see the point, it's that you haven't got one and continue trying to slyly worm your way into this debate with wanky pretention and pointless philosophy.
-AC
Originally posted by docb77
Honestly, I kind of agree on that one (just an example to illustrate the flexibility of the term human), but I'm pretty sure you'd be tried for murder if you tried to "put them out of their misery."
Has Dr. Kavorkian gone to jail yet? (that's a serious question)
Euthanasia is only illegal in some countries, not all.