Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How is an Abortion a scientific issue?
I can undertsand that it as an legal issue, but not a scientific one.
When your morality is against it based on you perceiving cells or a foetus to be something that they factually are not, then yes, science comes into it.
If your argument is "It's killing a human being.", then you are scientifically wrong.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Science cannot dictate morals or laws of the State, because it's on completely different grounds.
Just like your morals cannot dictate what is and isn't a human being, science does. You can defend cells or foetuses all you want, but if your issue for defending them is "They're human beings.", you're scientifically wrong and your argument is based on false information.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Laws are morals enforced by whatever State they are in.
Right...
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Doesn't matter, Science does not dictate morals and again Murder is a Legal/Moral term.
Murder is not a moral term, there's no such thing as moral murder. If it's not murder by law, it's not murder at all. Murder as a concept was made up solely to define what constitutes the crime.
Yes, it does matter. If you are trying to force abortion to be outlawed because you feel the foetus or cells are something they scientifically are NOT, you are factually wrong and your argument is broken.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Why, because it's against your morals?
No, because it's dumb.
Science proves foetuses and ESPECIALLY cells are NOT human beings. Science PROVES that. So for your argument to be "Well I think they are.", is dumb and wrong. Your morals, you WANTING them to be something, does not matter.
Scientific fact says they are not human beings, so for your moral debate to be based on something undeniably incorrect, it's stupid.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Abortion is an issue of morality, not science.
Yes, and your morals do not make foetuses and cells human beings. Science says they are not, law doesn't see them as such, so your morality does not make them such.
"My morals tell me it's wrong cos cells and foetuses are human beings.", no, that's false.
You can be sure the if science agreed with YOU on this, you would be using it faster than Lindsay Lohan can destroy a career, and if you say you wouldn't, you're a liar.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When your morality is against it based on you perceiving cells or a foetus to be something that they factually are not, then yes, science comes into it.
I never said a fetus is human, and Science does not dictate morals. There on completely different grounds.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If your argument is "It's killing a human being.", then you are scientifically wrong.
Don't care, since science doesn't dictate morals.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Just like your morals cannot dictate what is and isn't a human being, science does. You can defend cells or foetuses all you want, but if your issue for defending them is "They're human beings.", you're scientifically wrong and your argument is based on false information.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Murder is not a moral term, there's no such thing as moral murder. If it's not murder by law, it's not murder at all. Murder as a concept was made up solely to define what constitutes the crime.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, it does matter. If you are trying to force abortion to be outlawed because you feel the foetus or cells are something they scientifically are NOT, you are factually wrong and your argument is broken.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Science proves foetuses and ESPECIALLY cells are NOT human beings. Science PROVES that. So for your argument to be "Well I think they are.", is dumb and wrong. Your morals, you WANTING them to be something, does not matter.Scientific fact says they are not human beings, so for your moral debate to be based on something undeniably incorrect, it's stupid.
Yes, and your morals do not make foetuses and cells human beings. Science says they are not, law doesn't see them as such, so your morality does not make them such.
"My morals tell me it's wrong cos cells and foetuses are human beings.", no, that's false.
-AC
I never claimed that a Human is the same as a fetus, I believe they should have the same rights.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
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.
Originally posted by Schecter
in a case where scientific evidence is relevant it should be used. thats what he said, regardless of how you try to switch and manipulate his words. he never said that science is universally necessary to enforce law. anyone who is not a desperate yapper/slanderer can see this.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarOkay,So, then even if they are different scientifically, why should they be treated differently? Why should humans be treated differently from animals, and I never said a fetus is a human.
If you take that stance, I hope you're a vegetarian. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite and according to your own rule, on the same level as a cannibal.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
If you take that stance, I hope you're a vegetarian. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite and according to your own rule, on the same level as a cannibal.
Originally posted by Ymir
Technically, the law doesn't give you your rights. It protects them.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
It was a rhetorical qurstion. . . I believe in natural rights for humans.
Believe in what you want, don't try and make other people abide by your own beliefs though. I could believe in the right of dogs to have the vote, enforcing it by law would be ridiculous though.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Believe in what you want, don't try and make other people abide by your own beliefs though.
Since when do people not enforce there morals on others, It's inevitible. Your forcing your morals on me right now, when you tell me not to force myself on other people.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I could believe in the right of dogs to have the vote, enforcing it by law would be ridiculous though.
I understand what your saying, but like I said "Might makes Right". The powerful can force whatever they want on the weak. It's harsh, but it's life.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Since when do people not enforce there morals on others, It's inevitible. Your forcing your morals on me right now, when you tell me not to force myself on other people.
I love that argument 'you telling me not to be oppressive, is oppressive' not really is it? Because with my view I'm leaving it up to the woman's moral view on the subject, not telling her what I think is right and therefore she must do it.
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I love that argument 'you telling me not to be oppressive, is oppressive'
wow, indeed
thats been echoed by a few people here. talk about covoluded logic...and really how mature is it?
"well i think they YOU'RE oppressive for not allowing me to not allow you to be oppressive toward me" dur
Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I love that argument 'you telling me not to be oppressive, is oppressive' not really is it? Because with my view I'm leaving it up to the woman's moral view on the subject, not telling her what I think is right and therefore she must do it.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
So, your telling me that everyone is free from everyone?
im telling you that its not a "fact of life" that people control other people. its a very common disposition, but not an inevitability. do you only think in extremes? that people are either all controlled or all uncontrolled? does the concept of a gray area frighten, confuse, and enfuriate you?