quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I'll take that as a complement.

There's been a lot and I've told you this before, and I've commented on them when it happens. I've even said that I do like you, just that you do spout some serious nonsense. If you want one example though, that bit about willing yourself homosexual, that was ridiculous.

...and again, not if it's true. Would Kasparov be "arrogant" if he claimed to be one of the best chess players of all time?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
He got his ass handed to him by a machine.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
I'll take that as a complement.

There's been a lot and I've told you this before, and I've commented on them when it happens. I've even said that I do like you, just that you do spout some serious nonsense. If you want one example though, that bit about willing yourself homosexual, that was ridiculous.

...and again, not if it's true. Would Kasparov be "arrogant" if he claimed to be one of the best chess players of all time?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
He got his ass handed to him by a machine.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
It was two wins to one and six draws, considering its a machine and he's Russian, I wouldn't say "handed".

quote: (post)

Originally posted by VioletEyesPop08
He's still being quiet on his so-called point that there is nothing special about being privileged or a certain race.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
It was two wins to one and six draws, considering its a machine and he's Russian, I wouldn't say "handed".

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough. He's a little better than me anyways. I shouldn't mock him.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
What?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by VioletEyesPop08
It just isn't right.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by VioletEyesPop08
Machine?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
What isn't right?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
A computer, you clown.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. All of your posts have been a great show and tell for why the **** abortion should be mandatory.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
A computer, you clown.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by VioletEyesPop08
You should not be stuck on referring to me as black or even treating me as such.I love computers-

quote: (post)

Originally posted by VioletEyesPop08
I love computers-

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Devil King
Was that last part neccessary? I mean, come on, she's proven to be a likable, intelligent in her own way, super-happenin' chick from one of several states! It's easy to tell that people are who they say they are on the internets! I cry a little everytime you guys are mean to someone for no good reason!

Reported!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
1. Because abortion is not the "wasting of potential human life" like you call contraception (life that has not yet been formed, mind you) but rather is the elimination of life that has been formed and is now it's own separate entity. It is the ending of what has started, not the prevention of what hasn't started. They are categorically different. One is not a human life yet; one is. (though agreed, not fully formed)

quote: (post)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
1. False. There is a big difference between sperm and egg one second before and one second after fertilization. A whole new organism has been formed.

That analogy works about as well as saying the only difference between the bullet fired at your head one second before it hits and one second after it hits is proximity. It's completely changed the situation BECAUSE of what happens in that one second.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
2. I never said it was wrong to "prevent" the development of human life, only to "halt/stop/end" the development of human life, ONCE it has started developing. (if you prevent it, it hasn't been formed in the first place, now has it?)

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, it is okay to go against the will of God so long as one is doing something with which you approve, i.e. using contraceptives, but it is not okay to go against the will of God if one is doing something with which you disapprove, i.e. abortion.

In other words, it is okay to waste the potential for human life so long as it is done through methods with which you approve, i.e. masturbation, contraceptives, and sterilization, but not through methods with which you disapprove, i.e. abortion.

In other words, it is okay to prevent the development of human life so long as it is done during a moment with which you approve, i.e. one second before fertilization, but not during a moment with which you disapprove, i.e. one second after fertilization.

That is not hypocritical of you at all.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Again, that's nonsense. The life hasn't even been created/formed yet because the organism only comes from the joining together of egg and sperm. It's not the same as taking that life and ending it if it was never made. Potential for life and an actual life are two different things.

I'm not arguing for the protection of potential life, just life.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, actually it's more like I was never there to get shot in the first place. Abortion is what's like shooting a person in the head, because it's a living being that is destroyed. I'm not arguing about lives that don't exist yet.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
*Reported*

For being a whiny sensitive *******.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Pezmerga
A piece of paper has nothing to do with the concept of rights from a morality standpoint though. You are entitled to believe what you want though. I just find it rediculous that a woman 7 months along would abort at that point.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Robtard
*Reported*

For being a whiny sensitive *******.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
But the main argument in any debate (save for AC who likes to support abortion all the way up until birth.) on abortion always centers around "when does human life begin", right? Because nobody in their right mind would advocate the death of an innocent, young human life.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it:

Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.


It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist—a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records, and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.

The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months—by then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."


Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years, or longer still?

What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons; granted, you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."


I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.