Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Hey, style time. . .I never said it wasn't because I don't believe every pro-choicer has the same insentive. I was talking to a few people. . .
If you admit the middle ground, I must ask you this. Are your personal beliefs on abortion different from how you'd actually vote on a law to ban abortion for everyone?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And morals do not dictate science. You cannot decide that an organism is something it isn't based on morals, when science, the more credible of the two in the area of...well...science, contradicts you.
When did I state t or implied that morals decide Scientific Law?
I want you to quote me, because you seem to be constantly refering to an argument I never ever made. When did I state in this thread that a fetus is a human? I have said that it should be given similar rights as a Human, but never ever claimed it was one it's self.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What do you mean you don't care? You cannot expect to be taken seriously when your SUBJECTIVE morals are based on OBJECTIVE criteria, which you are ignoring.
Abortion is a Subjective criteria AC, it always has been.
The only ting that's objective is the definition of a human which I never argue'd.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You think it should be legally classed as murder to kill a horsefly, then?
Did I say that you should?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They shouldn't have the same rights because they aren't the same thing. Human foetuses do not have human being rights because they...? Answer: are not human beings. What's so hard to understand? There are reasons human beings have human rights, and it's because we have things worth protecting that foetuses and cells factually do not have.?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
There is not such thing as murder if it's not murder by law, that's a fact. Call it immoral killing, call it frivolous killing, call it whatever you want except something it factually isn't; like murder.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You've said many things. Like how you don't care about protecting life; just your own morals, then you said it is about protecting life, then it was about protecting your rights, then it was about giving rights to foetuses that they do not deserve.
I never said I did not care about protecting life, ever.
Why is it immoral to you? Because it's killing a potential something?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriWhy?
Before you said "Because they're potential human beings!", that doesn't count, because they're still not actual, definite human beings. If you want to establish rights for a foetus, new rights, that would be a better argument than saying they, who are not human beings, should have the same rights as human beings.
Might as well say using ant spray is murder.
-AC
Originally posted by StyleTime
Sup man. I see you've taken a liking to the GDF recently. It's not so bad huh?If you admit the middle ground, I must ask you this. Are your personal beliefs on abortion different from how you'd actually vote on a law to ban abortion for everyone?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
When did I state t or implied that morals decide Scientific Law?
It was more of a general point than at you, but it was also there in case you thought so.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I want you to quote me, because you seem to be constantly refering to an argument I never ever made. When did I state in this thread that a fetus is a human? I have said that it should be given similar rights as a Human, but never ever claimed it was one it's self.
I'm saying it's NOT a human so it doesn't deserve the same rights. Whether you said it is one or not is irrelevent.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
What?Abortion is a Subjective criteria AC, it always has been.
The only ting that's objective is the definition of a human which I never argue'd.
Morally it's subjective, so all that's left is to discuss why you believe something that isn't human deserves the rights OF a human.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Did I say that you should?
All animals should be equal etc, killing is killing etc. You've said these things. You don't draw any distinction, so I'm asking you.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
There is no Scientific law stating that you cannot give Fetuses the same rights as Humans. If you want to argue that Fetuses should not have the same rights as humans, Go ahead. But, know that it will not be subjective and that argument about Huamns adn fetuses will be dead. Because Natural Rights are arbitrary.
That's a self-defeating argument. Ask yourself why foetuses and cells have not got the same rights as human beings. Why do you think that is?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Laws are morals, prove otherwise.
It's not a matter of JUST officiality though, it's a matter of reasoning. Pre-meditated malice and intent to kill is defined as murder, so it's hardly fair or sensible to say that accidentally killing a man is as bad isn't it?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Quote me
Quote Me
Quote meI never said I did not care about protecting life, ever.
I said to you "You claim to want to protect life, but you'd be a murderer.", you replied:
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I'm not fighting to protect life, I'm fighting to protect my beliefs.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
When did I say I wanted to protect life?
Do you want the page number on which you said these things? Because I can get it.
You don't give a shit about life. Cells and foetuses are tools to push and protect your own morals. Your claims to be protective of life went out the window when you admitted you'd commit murder for the sole sake of protecting your own beliefs.
You want to protect rights, but you do not respect a LIVING human being's right to not be murdered. It's not happening, Ashtar.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You cannot rationalize someone's morals since they are usually controoled by feelings. Your seem to be attempting to dictate everything with scientific Guidelines.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that most moral arguments came from ignoring fact, like The Black Ghost for example. If you agree that foetuses and cells are not human beings, then that's fine with me.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI'm saying it's NOT a human so it doesn't deserve the same rights. Whether you said it is one or not is irrelevent.
I disagree, I feel fetus's should be given similar rights to humans. Because they are a human by-product that will eventually grow to a full fledged human. Human Rights should start at pregnancy and not at birth.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Morally it's subjective, so all that's left is to discuss why you believe something that isn't human deserves the rights OF a human.
It should be given similiar right and not the same because I believe Human Rights should start at pregnancy and not at birth.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
All animals should be equal etc, killing is killing etc. You've said these things. You don't draw any distinction, so I'm asking you.
I've said that killing is killing, but context matters the most.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's a self-defeating argument. Ask yourself why foetuses and cells have not got the same rights as human beings. Why do you think that is?
Because people do not regard them as human just like people regarded slaves a non-humans. I repeat myself, they should be given similar rights not the same rights.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not a matter of JUST officiality though, it's a matter of reasoning. Pre-meditated malice and intent to kill is defined as murder, so it's hardly fair or sensible to say that accidentally killing a man is as bad isn't it?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I said to you "You claim to want to protect life, but you'd be a murderer.", you replied:Do you want the page number on which you said these things? Because I can get it.
Go ahead, but that doesn't change the what I've been saying all along. I'm fighting for my morals that doesn't mean I do not care for life. I don't have to put life above my morals to prove I care about it. I do care, just not with the same passion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't give a shit about life.
When did I say that, you keep twisting what I'm saying to support your argument. Like when you accused me of claiming a fetus is the same as a human.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Cells and foetuses are tools to push and protect your own morals. Your claims to be protective of life went out the window when you admitted you'd commit murder for the sole sake of protecting your own beliefs.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I disagree, I feel fetus's should be given similar rights to humans. Because they are a human by-product that will eventually grow to a full fledged human. Human Rights should start at pregnancy and not at birth.
No, you see, that's where you're wrong. Eventually? No, not eventually. That would mean it's not a POTENTIAL human being, but a DEFINITE one, and that is not the case. It cannot be both, as proven.
Why should they be given equal rights? Saying "Because they're a human product." doesn't work, because that makes no sense. They're not equal, why should they be given equal rights?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
It should be given similiar right and not the same because I believe Human Rights should start at pregnancy and not at birth.
Why?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I've said that killing is killing, but context matters the most.
Which is why you cannot equate all killing, because context is what separates different forms of killing. Murder from manslaughter, manslaughter from other forms etc. You just defeated your own point.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because people do not regard them as human just like people regarded slaves a non-humans. I repeat myself, they should be given similar rights not the same rights.
People regarding slaves as non-humans are idiots, they are factually human beings, just like cells and foetuses are NOT HUMAN BEINGS.
I'm asking why you feel they should have similar rights. Why do you feel it starts at pregnancy? Especially considering there is NO humanity there at that point.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Depends on the context, If a reckless action leads to man lsaughter then the punishment should be similar.
Why?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Go ahead, but that doesn't change the what I've been saying all along. I'm fighting for my morals that doesn't mean I do not care for life. I don't have to put life above my morals to prove I care about it. I do care, just not with the same passion.
You SAID;
"I'm not fighting to protect life.".
And; "When did I say I wanted to protect life?".
The last one you said in reply to me suggesting you want to protect life. You do not, you've said you do not, now you're changing your argument.
If you would take life for nothing other than your own morals, which you have said you would do, then to claim care is stupid. It's evident you do not.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
When did I say that, you keep twisting what I'm saying to support your argument. Like when you accused me of claiming a fetus is the same as a human.
I never said you said that, I said it's implied and deduceable from your claims and posts. I've quoted you saying you aren't fighting to protect life, you've said you'd murder to protect YOUR morals, not life, your morals. That was your original argument.
So it's EVIDENT you don't give a shit.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
When did I say I want to protect life no matter what?
You don't, and that's my point. So to fight for rights of human "life" is silly, because you'd willingly take it for personal selfishness.
I accused you of selfishness and being on a selfish crusade and you said "I didn't deny that.".
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, you see, that's where you're wrong. Eventually? No, not eventually. That would mean it's not a POTENTIAL human being, but a DEFINITE one, and that is not the case. It cannot be both, as proven.
Either way, if no complications arise then it still has a future as human being. Combined with the fact that it's a by product of a human being. I believe it's entitled to similiar rights.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why should they be given equal rights? Saying "Because they're a human product." doesn't work, because that makes no sense. They're not equal, why should they be given equal rights?
I never ever claimed they were equal and that they should have the exact same rights.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why?
Because it still has a future as human being. Combined with the fact that it's a by product of a human being. I believe it's entitled to similiar rights.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Which is why you cannot equate all killing, because context is what separates different forms of killing.
Context within the eye's of the law, not scientifically.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
People regarding slaves as non-humans are idiots, they are factually human beings, just like cells and foetuses are NOT HUMAN BEINGS.
That's my point, the people did not see it this was because Laws/Morals/Dogma's are arbitrary.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm asking why you feel they should have similar rights. Why do you feel it starts at pregnancy? Especially considering there is NO humanity there at that point.
Because it still has a future as human being. Combined with the fact that it's a by product of a human being. I believe it's entitled to similiar rights.
Why?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You SAID;"I'm not fighting to protect life.".
And; "When did I say I wanted to protect life?".
The first quote is correct, because I'm not fighting to protect life more so than my morals. My perception of life through my morals come into play when I stated that.
The Second Quote is my error since I forgot to put the word "generally" after that statement. It should read: "When did I say I wanted to protect life generally?"
None of those post say anyhting about me not caring about life, they simply state what I've been telling you from the get go. I'm not fighting to protect life more so then my morals.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The last one you said in reply to me suggesting you want to protect life. You do not, you've said you do not, now you're changing your argument.
I wasn't implying anything of the sort, so, your wrong.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you would take life for nothing other than your own morals, which you have said you would do, then to claim care is stupid. It's evident you do not.
Now your deluding yourself, you said I claimed I didn't care about life despite not stating that myself. Just because I'm not fighting to protect life doesn't mean I don't care about it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never said you said that, I said it's implied and deduceable from your claims and posts. I've quoted you saying you aren't fighting to protect life, you've said you'd murder to protect YOUR morals, not life, your morals. That was your original argument.
My argument never changed, I never ever once said I'm fighting to protect life. Until I actually made that argument then you can say my argument changed, but I didn't. Your basing your argument on some implication instead of fact.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So it's EVIDENT you don't give a shit.
Nevermind I posted what my views on life were, but you somehow failed to quote them.
I care about life, but I'm not fighting to protect them.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't, and that's my point. So to fight for rights of human "life" is silly, because you'd willingly take it for personal selfishness.I accused you of selfishness and being on a selfish crusade and you said "I didn't deny that.".
-AC
I know. . . because morals are of the self and therefore are selfish. When did I claim I was fighting for the life?
I simply said I care about it and that no man has the right to take the life of another. I explained all this already . . .
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Either way, if no complications arise then it still has a future as human being. Combined with the fact that it's a by product of a human being. I believe it's entitled to similiar rights.
It doesn't have a FUTURE. It has potential to become something else.
The future is a conceptual, non-existent state.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I never ever claimed they were equal and that they should have the exact same rights.
My bad, apologies.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because it still has a future as human being. Combined with the fact that it's a by product of a human being. I believe it's entitled to similiar rights.
It doesn't have a future. None of these things entitle it to something WE have rights to.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Context within the eye's of the law, not scientifically.
You cannot pick and choose which context things go in, Ashtar.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That's my point, the people did not see it this was because Laws/Morals/Dogma's are arbitrary.
I'm not discussing why laws exist, I'm discussing laws that do exist, and as long as they do, you can't say something is murder if it's legal.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Because it still has a future as human being. Combined with the fact that it's a by product of a human being. I believe it's entitled to similiar rights.
It doesn't have a future. Do you not get what "potential" means?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The first quote is correct, because I'm not fighting to protect life more so than my morals. My perception of life through my morals come into play when I stated that.The Second Quote is my error since I forgot to put the word "generally" after that statement. It should read: "When did I say I wanted to protect life generally?"
None of those post say anyhting about me not caring about life, they simply state what I've been telling you from the get go. I'm not fighting to protect life more so then my morals.
I have no choice but to take your word for it, as it's your word about you, against mine. I do believe, however, that you're bullshitting and changing your argument, but there's no point getting into he said, she said about that.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I wasn't implying anything of the sort, so, your wrong.
This is how I know you're weaselling out. I said "You say you want to protect life...", to which you replied "Where did I say I wanted to protect life?". Now you're changing it.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Now your deluding yourself, you said I claimed I didn't care about life despite not stating that myself. Just because I'm not fighting to protect life doesn't mean I don't care about it.
You care more about your own morals than life, that is implied in the fact that you'd commit murder to protect your morals.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
My argument never changed, I never ever once said I'm fighting to protect life. Until I actually made that argument then you can say my argument changed, but I didn't. Your basing your argument on some implication instead of fact.
You said to FeceMan; "Is it wrong to kill a life to protect a life?", implying that now you're trying to suggest you ARE trying to protect life.
You need to make up your mind, Ashtar.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Evident to you, wanting to protect and caring are two different things. You seemed to combine them in your own way.
How are you caring or protecting when you're committing murder?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Nevermind I posted what my views on life were, but you somehow failed to quote them.I care about life, but I'm not fighting to protect them.
Funny, because I was called a coward by you for not willing to die or commit murder, but now you're only "caring" for life from your chair without doing nothing about it.
Devil King is right, I don't know why I'm bothering. You're a hypocrite.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I know. . . because morals are of the self and therefore are selfish. When did I claim I was fighting for the life?
You implied it when you suggested you'd kill a life to protect a life, to FeceMan.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I simply said I care about it and that no man has the right to take the life of another. I explained all this already . . .
You "simply" say many things that don't agree with each other.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't have a FUTURE. It has potential to become something else.The future is a conceptual, non-existent state.
I know what the future is, but that doesn't change how I feel. If it has alot of potential to be a human then it should be given rights similiar to humans.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't have a future. None of these things entitle it to something WE have rights to.
Your being pedantic, I pretty sure you know what I mean when I say it has a future. Chances are that it will become human eventually, So, it's entitled in my opinion similiar rights. The is no scientific criteria for giving something Rights.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You cannot pick and choose which context things go in, Ashtar.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not discussing why laws exist, I'm discussing laws that do exist, and as long as they do, you can't say something is murder if it's legal.
I never claimed they were different legally, I said I disagree with the law that claims that.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't have a future. Do you not get what "potential" means?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This is how I know you're weaselling out. I said "You say you want to protect life...", to which you replied "Where did I say I wanted to protect life?". Now you're changing it.
Weasling out of what, I never said I was fighting to protect life once.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You care more about your own morals than life, that is implied in the fact that you'd commit murder to protect your morals.
Duh, I've said that from the get go.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You said to FeceMan; "Is it wrong to kill a life to protect a life?", implying that now you're trying to suggest you ARE trying to protect life.
That was a general question, I never put said question in such a way that implied that I was fighting to protect life. I asked "is it wrong to take a life to protect a life" not "Is it wrong for me to take a life to protect life"
I never ever said I was fighting to protect life in general
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How are you caring or protecting when you're committing murder?
I already explained that, I believe abortion threatens life of humanity. But, the main reason I'm fighting it is because it conflicts my own morals. My Morals> Life General I never ever denied this, that doesn't mean I do not care about life what so ever. Anyone can justify killing in the context of their morals
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Funny, because I was called a coward by you for not willing to die or commit murder, but now you're only "caring" for life from your chair without doing nothing about it.
I called you a coward because you seem to believe in defending your morals when it's convienent and not dying for them.
.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You "simply" say many things that don't agree with each other.-AC
And, you imply to much.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarThe word is "immoral." You contradict yourself; you stated you would not consider abortion "wrong" in the instance of anencephaly, due to lack of viability ex utero. The vast majority of all abortions occur at developmental stages where the fetus lacks viability ex utero, ergo the same reasoning should apply.
No, I want it outlawed becuase it is emoral iin my eye's. I've said that already.