Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Do you plan to adopt?Anyone without plans to adopt has no right to continually force this idea that adoption is preferable. Are YOU going to take the kid from her? No, you're not.
Then there's the argument "Some people can't even have babies.", so? How is that a woman's fault? Women don't owe it to infertile couples to keep their babies.
-AC
😐 That makes no logical sense at all... I'm saying is that giving a baby a chance at a decent life is preferable to killing it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Because you shouldn't have to go through 9 months of pregnancy for a lump of cells that might potentially become a human one day.
Oh, I get it! Don't want to deal with it? Make it seem less than human and kill it! ✅
Same thing Hitler did to the Jews. ❌
No more than this is.
Originally posted by Devil King
I see no real need to swich course.Let me play the part I resent:
Mommy: I got preggers! Oh Shit..I should never have ****d him!
Father: Oh shit, I don't want a child! I'm a snowboarding tough guy thqat doesn't want to get married!
Mommy:I could spend the rest of my life payng for this mistake, or I could abort it since I'm the body on which it's feeding and sustaining.
Baby:I might cure Cancer!
Mommy: Oh shit! My Mother is running for Vice President!
Daddy: What the **** have I done?
Mommy: Yes! He'll have to marry me now!
Baby: I just ate a tab of Acid! or Was it bacon? Maybe it was milk!
Mommy: Do I keep it?
Baby: Did I just have a thought? It would be great if I was recording classical music or transcribing the surgeon general's warning! If I had a thought between my ears, I might consider that being a fetus meant that I had a pass on go ticket...at least until the Pope said I didn't. OH **** religion means about as much as a pile of shit! Here I am ....dead and all...and no one is telling me about the mysteris of life and death! Jesus as a cool guy, but totally had it wong! **** this, if Jesus is right, then I'll leave that world to the retards!
Evangelical Christian: so he had it right! Jesus loves me! Thank god we all realize that snakes could talk and that the real garden of Eden was in Missouri.
The evangelical Christian part gave me a little chuckle however, at how simply foolish your representation is.
Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
No more than this is.The evangelical Christian part gave me a little chuckle however, at how simply foolish your representation is.
So you're saying that line of thought isn't one that motivates your position? It was supposed to be a mental turd, that's why it was aimed at people like you.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
What's bate?
It's a word play on the word "bait". Judging the tone of my comments, one could guess that my statements were not the most serious in nature. Those who know me here that have had extra-forum conversations with me know that when I use "bate" it is short for "masturbate". It's my form of immature humor.
For evidence of this use of "bate" or rather "bates", refer to Bardock42, RJ, Sol Valentine, gefallen engel, Tattoo (phucked up), etc.
BATES!
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Secondly, it's a moot point. They're two different kinds of lifeform. One's a living, breathing human being with deficiency, the other isn't, it's a foetus.
They are both human with a beating heart and brain synapse. They are both useless and/or parasites. Abort them both instead of one or the other. They each have their positives and negatives, the difference is a legal definition when it comes to abortion, which is what this debate is all about.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not killing people, it's aborting foetuses, get it right.
That's the current legal definition as a result of Roe vs. Wade, isn't it? If that decision wasn't debatable on even a scientific level, then it wouldn't be discussed, now would it? Roe vs. Wade will be visited again, no doubt. Hopefully, we can come to a more scientific consensus on human abortion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's none of your actual business what a woman does with her womb, that's hardcore fact.
Correct. She can do whatever she wants to her womb/uterus. However, what's inside the uterus is a different story. If there is a human in there, and she wants to kill that human, it is the state's business, now isn't it? (Lest we end up with "no it's not", "yes it is"...legally, it is up to the state after a certain point, which is 5 months.) As a voter, I do have a say so, regardless of your opinion. You can't force your code of ethics on me when:
1. You are not a citizen of my country.
2. When the laws in my land allow me that/those privilege/s.
You can hold the opinion that I have no right right over a fully eligible citizens body, and I can and have the right to exercise my rights to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, if I desire to. That's the way it is.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In an ideal world birth would be the limit, so honestly, a long as it's not a pathetically short time limit, then whatever.
I think you're confused. In YOUR ideal world, birth would be the limit. Scientifically, that's false. That baby is alive well before it's born.
I just had an epiphany. The limit should be set to whatever current technology can support outside of the womb. The youngest baby to survive would be the rate. Aren't we at 5 or 6 months right now?
That sounds fair enough to me. Fits well with the current conservative five months, right?
I think the neonatal standard is 22 weeks. Any earlier than that, and the babies are not resuscitated or kept alive. I could be wrong. Until that's confirmed, what is the exact gestation time a baby is allowed to be aborted up to? I'm not sure if it's five months, that just what I heard. Doesn't it vary from state to state?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well then I suggest you never have an abortion if you feel it's so wrong. Do not vote based on personal religious or spiritual beliefs, because then you are forcing your beliefs on others.
Dude! lol
It was a satirical comment about religion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Personal belief? Yeah, YOURS. Not the people who you will be imposing a law upon.
If you would have paid attention to my post/s, you would know that I believe just about all abortion "rules" end after you exit the set of religion.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
We don't because people continually let personal feelings get in the way. Like you.
That's simply unfounded malice. You specifically chose to disregard my literal stance on abortion for the sake of argument.
Also, your statement is obviously rubbish.
So, is a human defined by a set of unique DNA? Is it defined by consciousness? If so, what defines consciousness? Is it defined by a physical form possessing a soul as the theists like to believe?
Currently, it would seem it's defined by a specific gestational period.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, correct, definitely.
No, partially correct. What you're looking for is malice aforethought, which is not the same thing as maliciousness. You are definitely incorrect about this.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Secondly, most of the arguments against abortion...or all, probably, come from "Well I think..."
Great. Now you have opened yourself up for all sorts of stupid rubbish. "Based on the data gathered, we have concluded..." "The data point to", etc.
That's utterly ridiculous.
You can argue word semantics if you like, but you'd be missing the point if you did. Since the point of "human rights" STILL remains vague with this abortion thing, "I think" and all of it's incarnations will continue to abound.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you can't make a decision without such influence, then stop making one, especially when it falls upon people who do not care to share your beliefs.
I've already made my decision about abortion. I'm just not sure about abortion, on a scientific or objective level, outside of religion. Right now, I believe five months is acceptable but think it should be 3 months. Things may change as technology improves. Then a scientific level of three months may be set.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then what did you do? Disagree?
I already told you that. I simply voiced my opinion to the doctor.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The doctor never had all the info, that's why he didn't make the best suggestion.
He certainly did. He just got done talking to her and poking her guts and ribs. My wife clearly told him where the pain was coming from. He simply got carried away with his papers while asking questions.
The point is to question your medical professionals if you know better. I'm sure there are quacks out there that think, on a medical level, that a fetus shouldn't be aborted and there are some out there who think a baby could be aborted at time of delivery.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
An informed patient Vs an informed doctor? Exactly, you just wouldn't do it, because the reason you're there is so that someone professionally qualified can help you, as you are not.
In this case, he is a very well-informed doctor. He just got carried away with the post exam questions and forgot. Being a former pre-med student, I knew exactly where what was and found the exam he selected to be irrelevant. I'm sure you know enough to realize that the stomach is not on the right side of the body at the bottom of the ribs, right?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you can't fix your own car, you take it to a mechanic. You don't then argue with him about what's wrong,
Uh...
Dude.
If you don't posses the tools to fix your own damn car or you simply find yourself in a circumstance in which your can't fix your own car (being on rental property is the first thing that comes to mind), you most certainly take your car to someone who CAN fix it. If or when they give you a bogus diagnosis IF you know better, you had better damn well question it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why do you express joy at the idea of having your personal beliefs inflicted upon women, as a male? Really?
Straw man. That's irrelevant to what I stated. To a geneticist, that may very well be when a human starts. I was playing devil's advocate to show you how your beloved scientists could contradict you.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I don't consider it smart or clever.
Great, because it was intended "under your skin" humor. It was more like a "nee nars" statement.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's because oppressive nutjobs have every profession scared to make a logical decision, "Heaven" forbid they make one that contradicts religion, that's why we don't have a decision.
I agree. That, coupled with the professionals having their own ideas on what a "human" is could also play a part in the indecision.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because "Selfish" isn't part of the murder criteria.Murder is the unlawful, maliciously intended killing of a human being. As far as I can tell, it's not unlawful, maliciously intended, nor is the foetus a human being. So no.
Strawman. That's not what I was talking about. I was referring to motive for murder.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you consider abortion to be murder, you're an idiot, because that's flat out ignoring fact.
My statement was speculation and not my actual opinion. If it were a statement, then I wouldn't have ended it in a question.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It is, it factually is.
You're missing the point. Are you forgetting law is the derivative of morals? Are you also forgetting that those morals are variable from person to person? Of course not. You are damming your ability to interpret information by being close minded. How is that different from the pro-lifers you seem to despise?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Murder is a LEGAL term created to help define a KIND of killing. Killing does not equal murder, and if it does not fit the specific criteria of murder, then it's not murder. That's a fact.
Great. We've established that on the legal level. Luckily, the law isn't static. It can be redefined if in error. The entire debate on abortion is about the creation or destruction of those laws pertinent to abortion. Now do you see why the interpretation of "murder" has come into question? If the rights of that unborn child are established at a specific gestational time, abortion after that point would be murder. Ergo, this entire friggin' debate.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Another HUMAN BEING'S life, of which a foetus is not.
That's your interpretation, not a scientific fact.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Having "human" in the title doesn't make you a "human being".
LOL.
Word semantics?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Forensic teams refer to things with human as a prefix; human hair, human toenail. They're not actually humans, and neither is a human foetus. It's a foetus.
LOL. One is a noun and the other is an adjective, dude. I thought that was obvious to you. Let me show you.
Human adult. Human child. Human fetus.
BTW, you are committing a continuum fallacy. When does the clump of cells cease to be a clump of cells and become human to you? It's obviously birth for you. So doesn't intact D&X present a paradox for you? AHA! 😆 (I know, I know...it doesn't since it's a fetus. If you couldn't tell, that was humor.)
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
"Intent", if the intent is malice, then yes. If it's not, it's usually manslaughter, which isn't murder. Hence why people with "Intent" to kill...a loved one in pain, isn't always looked upon as murder, because it's not malicious intent.
Well, you're wrong. Maliciousness is not a prerequisite of murder.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Right and wrong are subjective. Personally? I don't think there should be a limit on abortion, but I accept there will be.
Cool. We agree, for the most part. Again, I believe a limit should only be set within the confines of a religious institution.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Of course laws can be stupid, like drug laws, but that's because anything you do to your own body is your decision. Like...abortion. Foetus is to do with you and nobody else.
I fully agree with the drug statement you made. However, the counter argument to that is: But a person under the influence can negatively affect those around him or her. Therefore, it DOES affect other people.
And abortion is not solely a decision a women makes about her body. It's also a decision she makes about aborting the life of another body.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
We spell them that way because it's called English, we're from England, and unlike our Western brothers and sisters; don't actually have a problem with silent letters and non-literal spellings.
We actually have shit loads of words with silent letters in them. There's loads of them all through out the English language.
There's a organization (oops...I mean organisation, because that's how it's spelled. 😖hifty🙂 called the Spelling Society. It originated from you Brits. It is a very intelligent idea.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Though it's mostly because that's how they're spelled. Although foetus may admittedly just be a British exception, not the true spelling, where as the rest are generally the true spelling.-AC
Cool. I was curious. I figured it was something like that.
Originally posted by BackFire
It absolutely is a false comparison.It is also a strawman argument. You misrepresent what AC said and then start arguing against that, when he never said any such thing or even implied such a thing. You disregard what he actually said and argue against your own comparison that no one has made but you.
Also borders on slippery slope. The premise is that if you are pro choice then that must mean you are in favor of murdering old people and retards when there is no inherent road that would lead to that end.
It's especially stupid because the question you asked as a 'trap' wasn't even answered in the affirmative by him, as you are acting. It seems you were so eager to make the comparison that you didn't even care if he answered 'yes', you were going to make the comparison regardless, which is exactly what you've done.
Also, the argument that you've made to further the comparison doesn't make sense either. Your argument seems to be that because a fetus and an old retard are both a hassle that they are the equivalent and that because the fetus has potential it shouldn't be aborted, but that wasn't anyone's initial argument. No one said that the fetus should be aborted because it's a lot of work, you're countering something that no one has said.
You are absolutely and inexorably correct. Except, in this case, apple seeds are zygotes and small tiny apples are fetuses. I originally read his post as, "You might as well say apples are apples, and sell them as such."
What Bardock calls a "reading comprehension problem" is actually arrogance. When I read over something, usually a small sentence, I take a vague picture. I then recall that picture when typing a response or thinking about what was posted or written. This has lead, many times, to word semantic debates. The arrogance comes in because the thought never crosses my mind that I might have recalled that foggy image incorrectly until Bardock or someone says, "You ****tard, that's not was I/he/she/we/they said."
Originally, I contemplated using another word such as "sub-standard human", but thought that AC, in his intelligent mind, would pick up on what I was trying to pull. He's not new to this. I thought to change it to "under-developed", which I now regret because it can be argued that that was a misnomer for my intentions.
However, that's all irrelevant because I recalled what he said incorrectly.
Bardock and Backfire, I apologize for being an arrogant ****tard about something so stupid. AC may have realized what I had done and chose to disregard it. That or he feels that you guys covered it well enough.
Originally posted by dadudemonWhat you explain there can also be summed up as...
You are absolutely and inexorably correct. Except, in this case, apple seeds are zygotes and small tiny apples are fetuses. I originally read his post as, "You might as well say apples are apples, and sell them as such."What Bardock calls a "reading comprehension problem" is actually arrogance. When I read over something, usually a small sentence, I take a vague picture. I then recall that picture when typing a response or thinking about what was posted or written. This has lead, many times, to word semantic debates. The arrogance comes in because the thought never crosses my mind that I might have recalled that foggy image incorrectly until Bardock or someone says, "You ****tard, that's not was I/he/she/we/they said."
Originally, I contemplated using another word such as "sub-standard human", but thought that AC, in his intelligent mind, would pick up on what I was trying to pull. He's not new to this. I thought to change it to "under-developed", which I now regret because it can be argued that that was a misnomer for my intentions.
However, that's all irrelevant because I recalled what he said incorrectly.
Bardock and Backfire, I apologize for being an arrogant ****tard about something so stupid. AC may have realized what I had done and chose to disregard it. That or he feels that you guys covered it well enough.
...wait for it...
...READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM.
You ****tard. Creative excuse for one though.