Abortion

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Natural Rights are not a scientific concept. . .there a set of abstract beliefs. Unless you have scientific proof that humans are entitled to certain rights.

There is a set of human rights, which every human being is lawfully entitled to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
come on, you are british. you can do better than that.

Believe it or not, we British are a polite bunch.......

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Believe it or not, we British are a polite bunch.......

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because you refuse to think about the potential life she's carrying. Would it be okay if you were aborted because your mom didn't feel like having a baby at the time? Your using mostly scientific and legal terms to debate a moral issue. . . Your acting like an automaton.

Seeing as you dodged it before, I'll point out the problem with that kind of thinking again; you're using morality to debate scientific and legal issues. Worse; your morality is causing your mind to override scientific fact and legal fact.

The only moral part is if it's right or wrong; to which there will be no conclusion. I have no right or wrong feelings toward the procedure itself. I think some reasons are fine, some are lame, but neither are my business. Morals are subjective, right? Fine. Science and legality cannot prove morality, right? Of course.

The problem is simple; People have a MORAL problem with abortion based on such things as "It's murder.", which is factually untrue, and "It's a human being.", which is factually untrue. The former being legally proveable, the latter being scientifically proveable.

You cannot have a moral argument based on something that is wrong anyway.

If your morals say it's wrong to kill the cells, that's FINE. If your moral argument says it's wrong to kill the cells...BECAUSE it's a human being, then you are wrong, because it's not. Your morals, similarly, do not dictate science. Science says cells are not human beings, that a foetus is not a human being. If you think it's morally wrong to kill either because of what they are, cells and a foetus, fine by me. I disagree, but whatever. If you are trying to argue morals based on misinterpreting or ignoring what IS fact, then your argument is on broken ground from the start.

RJ's morals say it's wrong because cells are a potential foetus, or a foetus is a potential human being, which is fine. Potential is enough for him, it's not for me. We simply disagree. He knows, however, that cells and foetuses, I hope, are not actual human beings. There's the difference.

-AC

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
come on, you are british. you can do better than that.

Ok then as a fellow brit, **** right off, you ****ing **** and stick the cells up your ****ing ****hole ******* **** **** pies.

Better? 😂

Originally posted by smoker4
Ok then as a fellow brit, **** right off, you ****ing **** and stick the cells up your ****ing ****hole ******* **** **** pies.

Better? 😂

What makes you think people who are english can debate better then us americans?jm

*bracing for Armageddon-type meteor of responses*

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
What makes you think people who are english can debate better then us americans?jm

People from England aren't as stupid?

Nah, that's unfair....you are a special case.

Brasing to see who answears first with no insults!Got to go anyway.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Brasing to see who answears first with no insults!Got to go anyway.jm

The majority of Brits are not influenced by a fictional book that has a Mexican Immigrant as main character.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Brasing to see who answears first with no insults!Got to go anyway.jm

You keep saying "Got to go!", are you on the run or something?

-AC

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
What makes you think people who are english can debate better then us americans?jm

Don't base yourself as the average American JM. Otherwise I think practically every nationality, including tribe cultures, would have that advantage.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Seeing as you dodged it before, I'll point out the problem with that kind of thinking again; you're using morality to debate scientific and legal issues. Worse; your morality is causing your mind to override scientific fact and legal fact.

Science cannot dictate morals or laws of the State, because it's on completely different grounds.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Science and legality cannot prove morality, right? Of course.

Laws are morals enforced by whatever State they are in.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

The problem is simple; People have a MORAL problem with abortion based on such things as "It's murder.", which is factually untrue, and "It's a human being.", which is factually untrue. The former being legally proveable, the latter being scientifically proveable.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You cannot have a moral argument based on something that is wrong anyway.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Your morals, similarly, do not dictate science. Science says cells are not human beings, that a foetus is not a human being. If you think it's morally wrong to kill either because of what they are, cells and a foetus, fine by me. I disagree, but whatever. If you are trying to argue morals based on misinterpreting or ignoring what IS fact, then your argument is on broken ground from the start.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There is a set of human rights, which every human being is lawfully entitled to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
There is not such thing as human rights from a scientific perspective.

There is from a legal perspective, which also must use science to determine what is entitled to these rights; a human being, not, cells.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There is from a legal perspective, which also must use science to determine what is entitled to these rights; a human being, not, cells.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Laws do not have to use science to be enforced.

Who ever said they did? You absolute cretin.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Who ever said they did? You absolute cretin.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There is from a legal perspective, which also must use science to determine what is entitled to these rights; a human being, not, cells.

Not all laws do, but this law does. Because it has been proved that a foetuses and cells are not human beings, therefore the argument that they are entitled to rights, is preposterous.