Originally posted by debbiejo
Late term fetus' do feel pain, it's documented.
thats why im for the protection of late term fetuses. i think the birth=life standard is as outrageous and defying of logic as the belief that sentient human life begins with a single embryonic cell. like, "ZOMG PROTECT THE CELL!!!!1"
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I don't think you understand:- go back to school.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Legally, they always require backing to be enforced.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Would you like to live in tyranny, where all laws are decided based on personal beliefs? You're unbelievably cretinous.
Laws are decided on personally beliefs. The Law of the land is also synonamous with the culture of the people living there.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Doesn't matter if the fetus is human or not by definition, But it can be argued that abortion is morally wrong.
It can, but since morals are subjective, it's tricky.
Add into your calculations that many people find it morally wrong cos they consider the foetus to be something it factually is not, and you have one dead argument.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So, these cells do not deserve the right to evolve into a human being?
A) Into a FOETUS, that's the next step.
B) Where did I say that? I said cells nor foetuses deserve to be given rights of human beings, as they are not human beings.
-AC
Originally posted by SchecterNo, but since you brought it up......The fact that comatose patients were ONCE sentient beings has no bearing here. They are not sentient beings anymore.
also because it was never previously a sentient human being. oh, did i just kill your trump card? the spike-score comatose patient irrelevancy?
I have heard the argument that it costs a shitload of money to raise a child. That this is a reason as to why a woman should have the right to abort. What about the money it costs to care for these comatose patients? You think that is cheap? If they are not aware and feel no pain, who cares that they were ONCE sentient?
It is the reverse side of the coin. A group of unaware cells are OK to abort because they have not evolved into an aware conscious being. therefore comatose people should be OK to let them die because they are no longer aware.
You talk of what a group of cells aren't, so I talk of a coma patient who no longer is.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It can, but since morals are subjective, it's tricky.Add into your calculations that many people find it morally wrong cos they consider the foetus to be something it factually is not, and you have one dead argument.
Of course, what else would dictate it is wrong but morals? Are you arguing that abortion is right because of a scientific definition of an organism? How does that apply to morals and dogma's?
Originally posted by Schecter
that makes no sense. all you people conveniently ignore the fact that their is a majority besides you. throughout history its apparent that when one majority imposes their will and beliefs on the other, its always bad and certainly not an age of moral greatness, you pompous person.
Can it not be said that some countries aren't changed for the better when confronted by other countries moralities?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauriyes, a group of cells > into a fetus > into a human being. It is all connected.
It can, but since morals are subjective, it's tricky.Add into your calculations that many people find it morally wrong cos they consider the foetus to be something it factually is not, and you have one dead argument.
A) Into a FOETUS, that's the next step.
B) Where did I say that? I said cells nor foetuses deserve to be given rights of human beings, as they are not human beings.
-AC
Originally posted by Schecter
that makes no sense. all you people conveniently ignore the fact that their is a majority besides you. throughout history its apparent that when one majority imposes their will and beliefs on the other, its always bad and certainly not an age of moral greatness, you pompous person.
And your a fool, rule of the mob or a democracy is just as bad as despotism.
A government of the masses, authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression; results in mobocracy; attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights; attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences; its result is dem-o-gogism, license, agitation, discontent and anarchy."
That sounds like a good Government to you?
Imagine being a minority in a government like that.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
So, please explain how my Government works.A candidate is elected to office by a vote, in which the majority decides. This majority vote based on policies said candidate intends to enforce. This is a democracy.
A candidate is elected to office by a vote, in which the majority decides. This majority vote based on policies said candidate intends to enforce. This is a democracy.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How does that change what I said, they are still arbitrary.
It doesn't change what you said, it argues that basing decisions for the consensus based on personal beliefs is wrong.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarLaws are decided on personally beliefs.
Personal beliefs of the majority. Laws are there to protect, not infringe.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I have heard the argument that it costs a shitload of money to raise a child. That this is a reason as to why a woman should have the right to abort. What about the money it costs to care for these comatose patients? You think that is cheap? If they are not aware and feel no pain, who cares that they were ONCE sentient?
it makes no sense because it would be the same as trying to justify killing someone who's sleeping. its a weak and fallacious analogy since the only true disposition of an unconscious person is that their brains are not currently operating at full capacity.
a ball of cells has no consciousness because it has no brain to be conscious and never WAS concsious. "p-o-t-e-n-t-i-a-l" means jackshit and has no bearing on whether or not it is the taking of an E-X-I-S-T-E-N-T life
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
A candidate is elected to office by a vote, in which the majority decides. This majority vote based on policies said candidate intends to enforce. This is a democracy.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
It doesn't change what you said, it argues that basing decisions for the consensus based on personal beliefs is wrong.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Personal beliefs of the majority. Laws are there to protect, not infringe.
No, personal beliefs of who is in charge And, laws protect what people feel is important.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yes, a group of cells > into a fetus > into a human being. It is all connected.
A group of cells > POTENTIALLY into a fetus > POTENTIALLY into a human being.
It goes like that.
But you might as well say:
Sperm > POTENTIALLY a group of cells > POTENTIALLY into a fetus > POTENTIALLY into a human being.
It means nothing.
Originally posted by Ashestoashesjc
They may not deserve rights.... but if they're hacked from the "Godly waiting list" how can they even expierience these rights?
They don't, how is that relevant?
-AC
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The electoral college votes for a presidential canidate, the popular vote only offers insight on what the people want.So, all governments are bad?
No, personal beliefs of who is in charge And, laws protect what people [B]feel
is important. [/B]
You're an idiot, know what you're talking about before you type or at least try and think it through. Every single one of your points is shit, I strongly suspect I'm debating with a twelve year old.
The presidential candidate who is elected stands against other candidates with other policies, this makes it a democracy.
No, all governments are not bad. because all governments do not restrict a physical action based on a belief what the person is doing is wrong, and murder, contrary to all scientific research.
No, not the personal beliefs of who is in charge, that is tyranny. Laws protect what the majority feel is important.
Well, as an agnostic, and a liberally inclined person, I am very much pro-choice. I can understand the personal beliefs of those who believe that they are valuing life, but what pro-lifers have to eventually come to terms with is that we're dealing with a slippery slope. Overturning Roe V. Wade can only lead to Obi Wan saying he has a bad feeling about this. Or something to that effect.