Originally posted by Ashestoashesjc
My point here compared to my point on "Poor people should not have children" was contridictory. There I said that a person born in a poverished environment could grow to be something more, rather than a walking title. Here I said that I'd rather a child not come into existence than be forced to watch them in the same condition as the "Feed the Children" kids. So am I wrong?
Poverty is more of a social construct, than a natural one.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If it doesn't infringe other people's rights or endanger them, then yes. Don't play the card that it infringes the foetus's rights or endangers it, because it's not a person.
The first amendment. Even if it doesn't have rights it is still living. It can still feel. It can still be endangered.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If it doesn't infringe other people's rights or endanger them, then yes. Don't play the card that it infringes the foetus's rights or endangers it, because it's not a person.
Rights are a moral standing not a scientific one. Science does not dictate moral, and it never should. Morals are arbitrary, Science is not. Completely different grounds.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Rights are a moral standing not a scientific one. Science does not dictate moral, and it never should. Morals are arbitrary, Science is not. Completely different grounds.
Science has confirmed that a foetus is not in anyway the same as a human being, therefore the same human rights do not apply.
Originally posted by Ashestoashesjc
Think of Sudan, Chad, or other rural and destitute countries. Aren't they naturally poverished?
That depends, you have understand that wealth is Goods & Service not scrip. These countries are most likely have problems because they cannot set up a proper way of living.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Sorry, I have no time to listen or care about the bill of rights. It's not a global piece of legislation and there's also a lot of shit in it.
It is flawed I have to admit. And America's not exactly my "choice country" when it comes to debate, but the government is a strong and succesful one. Democracy is powerful...
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Science has confirmed that a foetus is not in anyway the same as a human being, therefore the same human rights do not apply.
Science does not dictate Rights/Morals. Scientifically speaking animals and humans should be judged in the same criteria. So, with that logic killing animals can be argued as murder.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That depends, you have understand that wealth is Goods & Service not scrip. These countries are most likely have problems because they cannot set up a proper way of living.
Most of them have no choice. Otherwise they wouldn't need spport, both economically and socially.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Science does not dictate Rights/Morals. Scientificallly speaking animals and humans should be judged in the same criteria. So, with that logic killing animals can be argued as murder.
Whenever there's a problem, Science is always the number one source of information ond fact. It dictates the world, but not morals. About right?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I mean't in the realm of probability. Which has higher odds: A person regardless or creed, Religion, or nationality becoming a pianist or a a fetus becoming a human?
Obviously the foetus.
His point was that potential does not equal goal.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
so are you claiming that these cells, whether alive or not, do not have the potential to be a living breathing human being?
Where did I say that? I said they're not CURRENTLY a human being, baby, foetus or whatever.
Dude, honestly and no offense is meant, but if you can't keep up do not expect indulgence.
-AC