Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ya really you think? How many times do I need to say it or is there something wrong with you that we don't see? Death On Demand shall I say it again do you not see it?
Also sport the world doesn't revolve around how you 'categorize' people or thing's the world is far more complex then that narrow little either or black and white box you seem to live in.
Lol you're the one trying to play the abortion issue as a black and white thing. "You're either a hideous baby killer or you're on the moral highground kissing every baby's forehead with me."
Anything I consider a baby, pregnancies at a certain point and babies in countries we're bombing, I am against them being killed. So in all circumstances where I consider something a baby and not a fetus I'm against the killing.
You can't say you stick to that principle. You aren't anti-war and since you consider all fetuses babies and you aren't against abortions in all circumstances than you don't even stick to it then. So you have no moral issue with foreign babies having their heads blown off and you don't care about the babies in the instances of abortion you approve of.
So, we're back to square 1, you're a hypocrite.
LMAO!! So since you have no problem murdering children through abortion but have an absolute issue in taking a life through conflict while at the same time as supporting a president who has now murdered a lot of children.....Who would you say is the larger Hypocrite? hmmmmm Seems to me there is nothing hypocritical about my stance on the issue but there appears to be plenty with yours hmmmm how funny is that.
Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
I think it is you that wants it both ways. Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being
O really? Then why does the law so closely mirror my position?(obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you).
Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.
For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being.
we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.
A white man might feel safe around a bunch of Klansmen, but a black man might be nervous.One would probably be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them.
points in time and colours of sin- and genitalia, if we want to look at history through women's eyesI think it is you that wants it both ways. Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you). Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.
I woulldn't engage in it either simply because societies opinion is completely arbitrary. The only definition based on any real absoute truth is a scientific one. The changes that turn a lump of cells into a human being are scientfically observable. But we can't observe when someone is imbued with a soul (religous). And far as legal and historical definitions, those again are going to be totally arbitrary and based simply on one's opinion. An opinion that can't be backed by anything observable. You're trying to accuse JB of avoiding an argument that isn't convenient when the reality is it's other way around. It is YOU that wants to avoid the scientific argument because it's not convenient for your position. It's easier for you to use those other defintions of personhood because they fit your position better. The only problem for you is they are definitions that have no real meaning. They are totally arbitrary points in time that someone simply pulled out of their ass at some point in history.
Why?However...........telling someone what they can and can't do with their own lives is pure bullshit. I mean........if you do something like that, in my opinion, that's strictly between you and your Creator.
Me shooting you in the face is between me and my creator? At what point does homicide become a social matter?
Post natal.
I'd like to add an analogy here.Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
I think it is you that wants it both ways. Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you). Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.
For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being. Science itself doesn't care about the value of life but it might explain why we do. The easiest to explain is why we value our own life, it is instinctual, it has literally been breed into us, survivors live to give birth to survivors. Furthermore (in general ignoring outliers) we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.
What is rarely true is that we value human life in an absolute way. Is it the norm for pro-lifers to conduct funerals for an early term miscarriage or grieve in the same way? Many early miscarriage go undetected but no effort is made to monitor the well being of these 'children'. History shows us that our value of human life steadily increase as it develops... to a point (e.g. we value a newborn over a fetus, a fetus over a zygote and even a toddler over a newborn) This value seems to peak around the time a child can survive independently and remains fairly steady through the reproductive years and continues as long as the person is contributing to society. Unfortunately throughout history we also see less value given to the elderly.
Science makes no moral judgements but people do and with consensus societies tend to make them law. As an individual you can choose not to have an abortion but our society currently won't punish you if you do. One would probably be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them. Most people would find the idea of executing a woman for terminating her pregnancy absurd and they should because it goes against our very nature.
A woman is like a mango tree. My mango tree often drops fruit if she has produced too much or has been stressed by weather or lack of a balanced diet. Some years she drops them all and produces a big crop the following year. Some years she drops some of them and produces a medium crop of healthy, tasty mangoes.
Just like my mango tree, a woman instinctively knows if she is ready to give birth. Having someone else make that decision for her goes against nature.
[science] can't define when you have a soul
If one's position is defensible, shouldn't you be able to defend it with logical, cogent, well-thought-out arguments? Shouldn't you be able to discuss the matter in an honest and intelligent manner?
A blastocyst/foetus/etc is an organism. It is alive and it is genetically human.* These are verifiable, objective, demonstrable scientific facts. It is all a matter of basic biology.
Therefore, the child is be definition a living human organism. We are, therefore, dealing with a human life. To 'abort' a pregnancy is to bring about the end of those physiological and biological processes that identify this human organism as alive- it is to bring about the child's death.
It is therefore a scientific fact that when we speak of abortion, we speak of ending human life. As we are also humans, we are therefore dealing with a case of homicide- homicide is defined as the killing of a human being by another human being.
If your position is defensible- if the ending of this life is a defensible ac- then you should be able to demonstrate why this is justifiable or acceptable without denying the facts of what it is you support. When pretend that we're not dealing with a living human being, you reveal that one or both of the following is true:
-You do not know what it is you advocate; you are guided purely by your emotion and your programming. You should shut your fucking mouth and not speak about things you do not understand
-You know your position is indefensible; you must lie about what it is you advocate because you cannot honestly defend your position
*Yes, I know a foetus can die in utero without the woman's body expelling it [see: stone foetus] and that humans aren't the only species to experience pregnancy. Given the context, such things should go unsaid. Let us exercise a little critical thinking here.
I don't think it's that they consider their real position indefensible. I think it's that it's really hard to say, "I think some lives are unimportant and should be disposable for the convenience of others", and still feel good about yourself as a person.
In fact IMO, insisting that there is no difference, as you have now on multiple occasions, is dishonest.
Society should or should not get involved in cases of homicide?
You seem to want it both ways. Shooting you is a matter for the Law, yet killing babies is between the killer and god...
Not at all. We are all free to do whatever we want to do.
So the Law shouldn't exist? We're back to Charles Manson's actions being strictly between him and god?
Most people disagree.
Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.
You apparently don't get the concept that if mankind didn't have free will, we'd do more damage to each other.
So you believe in a god who, if we had to do what he said, would order us to rape and murder eachother every time we saw one anther?
The god you imagine for yourself tells us what a piece of shit you really are
What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
Yep, and that is the way it going to stay despite your best efforts.I'd like to add an analogy here.I think it is you that wants it both ways. Throughout this entire thread (what I have read) you refuse to leave your 'scientific' argument to engage in societal (historical, legal, religious, etc) discussion on what constitutes a human being (obviously because the bulk of societal opinion would be against you). Yet you insist upon applying current societal opinions about the value of human life and murder to the unborn as if there was a consensus that the unborn was an individual.
For the sake of argument we will stick with your premise that the unborn is a human being. Science itself doesn't care about the value of life but it might explain why we do. The easiest to explain is why we value our own life, it is instinctual, it has literally been breed into us, survivors live to give birth to survivors. Furthermore (in general ignoring outliers) we value the other humans in an almost instinctual way that helps ensure the survival of our species.
What is rarely true is that we value human life in an absolute way. Is it the norm for pro-lifers to conduct funerals for an early term miscarriage or grieve in the same way? Many early miscarriage go undetected but no effort is made to monitor the well being of these 'children'. History shows us that our value of human life steadily increase as it develops... to a point (e.g. we value a newborn over a fetus, a fetus over a zygote and even a toddler over a newborn) This value seems to peak around the time a child can survive independently and remains fairly steady through the reproductive years and continues as long as the person is contributing to society. Unfortunately throughout history we also see less value given to the elderly.
Science makes no moral judgements but people do and with consensus societies tend to make them law. As an individual you can choose not to have an abortion but our society currently won't punish you if you do. One would probably be scared to be in a dark alley with a bunch of murders but wouldn't feel the same if it was a bunch of women that had abortions and the doctors who gave them. Most people would find the idea of executing a woman for terminating her pregnancy absurd and they should because it goes against our very nature.
A woman is like a mango tree. My mango tree often drops fruit if she has produced too much or has been stressed by weather or lack of a balanced diet. Some years she drops them all and produces a big crop the following year. Some years she drops some of them and produces a medium crop of healthy, tasty mangoes.
Just like my mango tree, a woman instinctively knows if she is ready to give birth. Having someone else make that decision for her goes against nature.
Nobody forces you to give birth.
Save in very few extenuating circumstances, women have more than enough time and opportunity to avoid impregnation, avoid implantation, or terminate the pregnancy prior to the creation of a new mind
What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
Yes.So there's no reasoning involved at all? It's just what you've been programmed to say or what?I draw the line at birth because IMO that makes the most sense, all things considered.
I can't help it if that's too hard for you to comprehend.
What changes between the time when the last toe is in and when the last toe is out?
If there is no difference between a human fetus, a human embryo, a human fertilized egg, and a born Person,
then hiring someone to perform an abortion on you is materially no different than hiring someone to kill your child, or your spouse, or your boss, or the guy who owes you money, etc., etc., etc.
Are you prepared to defend that position, and all the implications it has for the law assuming YOUR logic were used to establish the criminality of abortion?
Science doesn't define life the way you seem to think it does. Lay people sometimes mistakenly do, because those things could often be considered SYMPTOMS of life (those signs that we can observe), but that doesn't make them the definition of life. Think of it this way: you could observe that I'm coughing and sneezing a great deal, and draw the conclusion that I have a cold. But those are signs and symptoms of a cold, not the actual definition of what a cold IS (which would be an infection of the upper respiratory system by a specific virus).
enough about your cold... give me the real definition and prove me wrong (not that it has anything to do with my main points). Of course I think you will find it has probably evolved of the years.
As for the whole "we could say no one is an individual until separated from his mother" thing, we could also say the moon is made of green cheese. Saying something is meaningless to making it true. While it is true that what to do or think or feel about the facts is a matter of opinion, the facts themselves are not.
"Saying something is meaningless to making it true." You have certainly 'proved' that to me.
Several of the early pro-life arguments were backed up by the "by definition" phrase and I was simply pointing out the absurdity.
Like:
1. A baby by definition has been born.
or
1. A person is an individual.
2. An individual is a single human being.
3. A fetus is not an individual.
Q.E.D. a fetus is not a person.
I do not recall any pro-life arguments EVER being made that "a baby by definition has been born". Nor am I aware of any pro-life arguments ever being made that a fetus is not an individual. I DO know a number of incredibly ignorant pro-abortion supporters who STILL try to make this sort of illogical chain of unsupported arguments, and obviously, they are also the champions of the utterly absurd, made-up concept of "personhood".
I think you need to get clear on exactly what point you're trying to make, and then VERY CAREFULLY choose your words for it, because you're becoming incoherent.
Depends.OMG!! So now the Moral equivalent of Murdering an innocent child is the same as going to War LMFAO!! you might want to throw that shovel away.or keep digging LOL!!!
]
Is taking RU486 to terminate a pregnancy the moral equivalent of drowning your 2 year old in the bathtub?
Not at all. We are all free to do whatever we want to do.
So the Law shouldn't exist? We're back to Charles Manson's actions being strictly between him and god?
Most people disagree.
Someone like you would probably laugh and point if you saw some homeless person being teased and poked.
So you believe in a god who, if we had to do what he said, would order us to rape and murder eachother every time we saw one anther?You apparently don't get the concept that if mankind didn't have free will, we'd do more damage to each other.
The god you imagine for yourself tells us what a piece of shit you really are
Way to cherry pick douchebag. You cut out the most important part of the post, which is where I said you are free to shoot me, the people around are free to call the cops (or not), and the cops are free to track you down and take you to trial.
You must believe in a truly evil godWe have free will because if we didn't we'd end up doing more damage to each other and the planet.
What if we mastered cloning and she were pregnant with a child that shared her exact same DNA?if this were just a part of the woman's body (her matching DNA signature)
You DNA argument falls apart. It would, however, still constitute a distinct biological organism. It would still be a human life, and we can still expect the emergence of an individual mind.
Hey stupid.........the child DOES share part of her DNA. It also shares some of the father's DNA as well.
This subject is now closed for me. You dont want answers. You dont give a fuck, right? So why "dare" anyone to disagree with you and then jump their shit because you dont like what they say when they do answer?
What about people we don't want in us?This subject is now closed for me. You dont want answers. You dont give a fuck, right? So why "dare" anyone to disagree with you and then jump their shit because you dont like what they say when they do answer?
Actually, it's the pro-abortion spokesperson Art who said he didn't give a fuck what anybody thought.
What was said is that the pro-life people don't care what you DO to your body, except in the event that you are using it to inflict harm.
If it's too sensitive a subject for you, you shouldn't bring it up.
And whether or not you want a baby, it doesn't matter, it is still your responsibility. We don't get to kill off people we don't want around us.
