A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[ABikerSailor]

Gonna have to start spreading rep again if I want in.....you've got the Heisman on my rep count right now......

Save me one by the way!

 

[manifold]

Gonna have to start spreading rep again if I want in.....you've got the Heisman on my rep count right now......

Save me one by the way!

Seriously? I just checked and you're not even on my latest rep received list. You must be one stingy mother fucker!

 

[Ravi]

A fetus is not a human, at least, not until it develops a nervous system, usually around the 40 day mark.

Until then? It's no more "human" than a single sperm or an unfertilized egg. Just a mass of cells.

That is close to what I was saying...it isn't alive in the sense that a person is alive, it is alive in the sense of a sperm or whatever...which is why I originally stated the term kill was inappropriate, imo. Abort fits better, like aborting a mission...stopping it before it is a fact.

 

[Ravi]

A fetus is not a human, at least, not until it develops a nervous system, usually around the 40 day mark.

Until then? It's no more "human" than a single sperm or an unfertilized egg. Just a mass of cells.

That's one man's subjective determination. One that I tend to agree with btw. But the point of the OP wasn't whether it was "a human," but rather whether it was alive. And that's not subjective at all.

The definition of alive is one of the most subjective definitions of all.

 

[Ravi]

Not sure why you equate the clarification of a misunderstanding with a lie?

I'm not equating them at all.

The clarification itself contradicts the original statement. If you say on the one hand that a fetus isn't alive, and then you start the clarification with "it is alive but..." that's more of a retraction than a clarification IMO. And it seems a bit odd to issue a retraction while insisting it isn't a retraction.

As for the lie, that was something else entirely. That was the false claim that a question was unanswered when in fact it was.

Even that isn't true. You didn't answer the question I asked, you answered the question you thought I asked and then ignored my post that clarified what I asked.

 

[Valerie]

Not sure why you equate the clarification of a misunderstanding with a lie?

I'm not equating them at all.

The clarification itself contradicts the original statement. If you say on the one hand that a fetus isn't alive, and then you start the clarification with "it is alive but..." that's more of a retraction than a clarification IMO. And it seems a bit odd to issue a retraction while insisting it isn't a retraction.

As for the lie, that was something else entirely. That was the false claim that a question was unanswered when in fact it was.

Even that isn't true. You didn't answer the question I asked, you answered the question you thought I asked and then ignored my post that clarified what I asked.

Sounds like sheer nutbaggery to me!

 

[manifold]

The definition of alive is one of the most subjective definitions of all.

Perhaps philosphically. But we're not talking philosophy here are we?

Literally, alive means not dead. And that's hardly a subjective matter.

 

[manifold]

Not sure why you equate the clarification of a misunderstanding with a lie?

I'm not equating them at all.

The clarification itself contradicts the original statement. If you say on the one hand that a fetus isn't alive, and then you start the clarification with "it is alive but..." that's more of a retraction than a clarification IMO. And it seems a bit odd to issue a retraction while insisting it isn't a retraction.

As for the lie, that was something else entirely. That was the false claim that a question was unanswered when in fact it was.

Even that isn't true. You didn't answer the question I asked, you answered the question you thought I asked and then ignored my post that clarified what I asked.

I've since answered your clarified question.

 

[Ravi]

The definition of alive is one of the most subjective definitions of all.

Perhaps philosphically. But we're not talking philosophy here are we?

Literally, alive means not dead. And that's hardly a subjective matter.

Actually, I was talking philosophically...but it is also very subjective scientifically. But at this point it hardly matters.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not equating them at all.

The clarification itself contradicts the original statement. If you say on the one hand that a fetus isn't alive, and then you start the clarification with "it is alive but..." that's more of a retraction than a clarification IMO. And it seems a bit odd to issue a retraction while insisting it isn't a retraction.

As for the lie, that was something else entirely. That was the false claim that a question was unanswered when in fact it was.

Even that isn't true. You didn't answer the question I asked, you answered the question you thought I asked and then ignored my post that clarified what I asked.

I've since answered your clarified question.

Then you should have no problem retracting "cuntrag," "liar," or "fuck you." But of course that's probably mentally impossible for you...to admit that you were wrong.

 

[manifold]

The definition of alive is one of the most subjective definitions of all.

Perhaps philosphically. But we're not talking philosophy here are we?

Literally, alive means not dead. And that's hardly a subjective matter.

Actually, I was talking philosophically...but it is also very subjective scientifically. But at this point it hardly matters.

Ok fine, you're philosophically opposed to using the term kill to describe an abortion, even though the first definition of kill is "to deprive of life." Fair enough. But I philosophically disagree.

But on the scientific matter, you are wrong. 100% wrong. But you are correct in pointing out that it hardly matters.

 

[Shogun]

Even that isn't true. You didn't answer the question I asked, you answered the question you thought I asked and then ignored my post that clarified what I asked.

I've since answered your clarified question.

Then you should have no problem retracting "cuntrag," "liar," or "fuck you." But of course that's probably mentally impossible for you...to admit that you were wrong.

is that your rebuttal to everything that doesn't ask you if you want fries with your order?

 

[Ravi]

I've since answered your clarified question.

Then you should have no problem retracting "cuntrag," "liar," or "fuck you." But of course that's probably mentally impossible for you...to admit that you were wrong.

is that your rebuttal to everything that doesn't ask you if you want fries with your order?

Only with people that can't admit to being wrong.

 

[Shogun]

Then you should have no problem retracting "cuntrag," "liar," or "fuck you." But of course that's probably mentally impossible for you...to admit that you were wrong.

is that your rebuttal to everything that doesn't ask you if you want fries with your order?

Only with people that can't admit to being wrong.

I'm not seeing where manifold is wrong, necessarily. Hell, he's giving you more wiggle room than I would.

 

[Newby]

I can conceive of no logically sound utilitarian justification for that. Perhaps you'd care to explain that more fully?



That is not an accurate assessment. Any measurement of utility must necessarily be dependent on an objective and rational application of felicific calculus, and thus must necessarily consider intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. Your reference appears to be to ethical egoism, though remains skewed and somewhat inaccurate.



I'm afraid not, my boy. Ethics 101 came quite a while for me, though it would certainly aid your woeful ignorance.

I have to say, I'm surprised at where you draw a line. What is it in your idealogy that will not allow you to find justification in a 44 year old male having sex with a 13 year old female? Sound like 'ethical egoism' if you ask me.

Are you kidding me? Seriously. Are you suggesting that it's MY "ethical egoism", and NOT outright pederastic motherfuckers looking for excuses to prey on children, that makes a sexual union between a 44 year old and 13 year old remain is the "sick fuck" category?

I quote Nemisis, not you.

I'm on your side.

 

[manifold]

Even that isn't true. You didn't answer the question I asked, you answered the question you thought I asked and then ignored my post that clarified what I asked.

I've since answered your clarified question.

Then you should have no problem retracting "cuntrag," "liar," or "fuck you." But of course that's probably mentally impossible for you...to admit that you were wrong.

Sure, because I've never admitted to being wrong before.

Regardless, you did lie. You said I ignored your question when you knew that I didn't.

 

[Shogun]

I have to say, I'm surprised at where you draw a line. What is it in your idealogy that will not allow you to find justification in a 44 year old male having sex with a 13 year old female? Sound like 'ethical egoism' if you ask me.

Are you kidding me? Seriously. Are you suggesting that it's MY "ethical egoism", and NOT outright pederastic motherfuckers looking for excuses to prey on children, that makes a sexual union between a 44 year old and 13 year old remain is the "sick fuck" category?

I quote Nemisis, not you.

I'm on your side.

my bad. I'll give you one of those chupacabra-rare rare Shogun pos reps for my mistake.


and, just to make sure you are on the right track, it was Agnapostate that used utilitarianism to rationalize a sexual relationship between a 44year old dude and a 13 year old girl.

 

[Ravi]

I've since answered your clarified question.

Then you should have no problem retracting "cuntrag," "liar," or "fuck you." But of course that's probably mentally impossible for you...to admit that you were wrong.

Sure, because I've never admitted to being wrong before.

Regardless, you did lie. You said I ignored your question when you knew that I didn't.

Another lie. I said you didn't answer it.

What a sad thread.

 

[manifold]

Ok Ravi,

I just went back and I see where you did in fact attempt to clarify the question. But if I'm handing out grades for effectiveness and clarity, I'd give you a D-minus. But regardless, it is there and so I take back calling you a liar and nasty names.

And sugarcoat it all you want if you need to in order to be comfortable with your pro-choice position, but abortion does kill a fetus...every time.

 

[Ravi]

Ok Ravi,

I just went back and I see where you did in fact attempt to clarify the question. But if I'm handing out grades for effectiveness and clarity, I'd give you a D-minus. But regardless, it is there and so I take back calling you a liar and nasty names.

And sugarcoat it all you want if you need to in order to be comfortable with your pro-choice position, but abortion does kill a fetus...every time.

That's mighty big of you. Asshole.