Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

Originally posted by MindSpin
It was a very simple question...a one line question. One you have not answered, which is why I asked you again. I know you haven't answered it because I re-read all your replies in this thread before I asked it.

If you don't want to answer this one very simple question, and instead choose to call me troll...then I am only left to assume that you have no satisfactory answer.

I am dissapointed, people keep telling me that all my questions have been answered...this is a very simple one...and still you choose to dodge it.

Yes MindSpin, people keep telling you that your questions have been answered, multiple people actually, so have you considered that maybe multiple people saying the same thing might be correct? I have answered your question before, i will not do so again.

However now i see your strategy. You ask some questions and even when people have answered them you pretend like they haven't until they get fed up of typing the same replies. At this point you claim they can't answer your question so you are right. It might fool some people, but it won't fool most.

reply to post by OhZone


By the way, OhZone, if you did not already see MindSpin's response coming....

It is obvious that he/she will say something along the lines of "Why would the woman feel remorse if she is only killing a lump of cells". I believe that there is some logic in that response. However, I just wanted to give you a heads-up.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

...thats just more of your irrational myopic silliness... i've put down several animals that i loved very much because they were suffering and there was no cure, no quality of life...

It's more of an inconvience to care for them. You would have to be very attentive to their needs, spend lots of money for medical care.

Again...don't kid yourself...putting down a pet, while acceptable and I have no problem with, is a selfish act that is justified by rationalizing you are doing the "best" thing for the animal.

your ocd is WAY out of control, hon... take a break... drink a beer... go for a walk... visit with your wife or friends... your negative and often quite ugly attitude is not going to change anyone's mind on abortion...

Let's see...I have been working most of the day today. I played the Wii with my kids, spent some time with my wife, worked out, took a shower...had the in-laws over to watch a basketball game, had some tacos and now I'm watching cartoons with my kids before they go to bed and will be watching UFC with my family in about 30 minutes...oh yeah...and I'm still working.

Don't worry about me "hon"...I'm a great multi-tasker.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I told you...I re-read all your replies...you never answered that question.

It is such a simple question...why dance around it???

Is human life also biological life?

reply to post by OhZone

Mindspin says: “
Do women really want to kill their unplanned children?
And can they do it without the slightest twinge of guilt or remorse?
Do you honestly not see how hypocritical you are being??? “

As you have already learned, most women agonize over this decision, and do have plenty of remorse. No I’m not being hypocritical. I asked a question.
How do men feel about it when walking away refusing to support their offspring?

44247844 is right...that is my response.


Why remorse over a silly clump of cells???


Oh how you reveal yourself, and the lies you tell yourself, as you answer my questions.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I told you...I re-read all your replies...you never answered that question.

It is such a simple question...why dance around it???

Is human life also biological life?

I haven't looked at this thread for a while. Has anybody attempted to answer your question directly or have they just continued to change reality by proxy of semantics?

What there needs to be is an equally reprehensible straw man to balance out the other side of the debate. On the pro-life side, you have judgmental and dogmatic church cooks (not my words) so... there needs to be a horrible group to associate the pro-choice people with. Maybe some cooky religious group will come out in favor of abortion... I wonder if those Westboro Baptist monsters would support abortions of gay babies.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I told you...I re-read all your replies...you never answered that question.

It is such a simple question...why dance around it???

Is human life also biological life?

Really? I'm afraid you have just proven yourself not only a troll but a liar, because if you had reread all of my replies you would have seen this one.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
No i'm not disputing anything here, biologically life begins when cell meets egg, that's a biological fact, the cell develops and undergoes mitosis, this is unquestionably life in a strict biological sense. However i think humans are unique as we are self aware to a high degree and therefore we must use a different measuring stick than the strict biological definition of life.

So i say clearly humans are biological life but when talking about an unborn fetus we must use different definitions as there are other things to take into account like the life the fetus will have, the effects on the mother etc. But either way i answered your question, yes humans are biological life, you claimed to have read my replies, all of them and yet you someohow missed this one? Oh and i repeated this in other replies, like this one below.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
So we come to when life begins, in a biological sense you cannot be argued with, sperm meets egg, i won't bother arguing that because it's 100% correct.

Now i have proven you to be a liar and troll i'll leave you to it, i wasn't going to reply again but i couldn't miss the opportunity to prove you are trolling

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

I told you...I re-read all your replies...you never answered that question.

It is such a simple question...why dance around it???

Is human life also biological life?

I haven't looked at this thread for a while. Has anybody attempted to answer your question directly or have they just continued to change reality by proxy of semantics?

What a strange argument. Seems to me like this "Is it Alive" argument is just silly.

They're all alive and have human DNA. . . and?

Originally posted by igor_ats
What a strange argument. Seems to me like this "Is it Alive" argument is just silly.

They're all alive and have human DNA. . . and?

This is what a number of these people don't quite understand, their own argument about using biology as the starting point is flawed. If we simply take being alive biologically as important then a cow embryo is as important as a human one, however of course they claim human life is sacred. This leads us to the question of why it is sacred because biologically it is barely different from a chimp, so we have to ask other questions involving sentience and therefore it makes perfect sense that a developing fetus should have protection under law once it reaches a certain level of sentience if we consider that to be the thing which makes us special.

However some people have called such a position arbritary when it is as far from arbritary as possible. Indeed to use the simple biological point as the start of lfie is arbritary because it doesn't take anything else into account at all. It doesn't take in to account the risk to the mother, the long term effects on the child, cases of pregnancy via rape, incest, illegal abortions etc.

Rather than focusing on abortion and if it is wrong or not, why don't we focus on the welfare of children that are already here with us in the world? Child abuse comes in all forms and it has a greater effect on society than an unborn child will ever have.

With a name like Kevinunknown, i doubt you are a woman.
The point being that you are in no way fit to rule on the question. How biggoted are you, to be telling women how this is all going to work, and they can shut up and take it like a man?
I find the whole lot of you creepy anti abortionists to be as fanatically ignorant as The RC church which forces women into unprotected sex, and into bearing offspring like coke machines if they get pregnant against their will,
OR FACE ETERNAL DAMNATION as well as social ostracism.
Why cant you mind YOUR own life and the ones YOU are responsible for, and leave other beings to do the same?
I imagine you would reason that there are no circumstances where it is best to just pull life support from brain dead patients as well.
It always amazes me that those who are incapable of the act of child bearing,Should even wish to intrude into what is a private matter for the person who is pregnent.
Abortion is killing children yes.....
Who said it wasnt?
The US and british armies are engaged in the same process but this is a laudable undertaking because?
Mass stavation is killing children, but i dont notice the hue and cry about that....You people are starngely silent when it comes to the othe ways humanity is killing off its helpless .
People who know whats best for other people make me cringe.
When is all this meddling in others affairs going to stop?
Through time immemorial babies were cast out into the snow or abandoned where they would be eaten by predators etc. when they were unwanted.
Midwives had their own secret ways of killing unwanted babies, as well.
Genocide is really going on in places in the world today, but those people are a different colour and social class, so they arent worth a word or two either?
Your attack on the sanctity of a womans own person is akin to RAPE, as is theACT of rape.
But i dont suppose youd see that is the case would you?
We may deny ignorance, but hypocrisy still rules....
bleech.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Really? I'm afraid you have just proven yourself not only a troll but a liar, because if you had reread all of my replies you would have seen this one.

No i'm not disputing anything here, biologically life begins when cell meets egg, that's a biological fact, the cell develops and undergoes mitosis, this is unquestionably life in a strict biological sense. However i think humans are unique as we are self aware to a high degree and therefore we must use a different measuring stick than the strict biological definition of life.

It's funny...because I don't see the word "human" in one spot in that quote...how can you have answered the question when you are simply only talking about the process of biological life...and I'm talking about human life...it's almost like we were talking about something else....OH RIGHT...we were. I was at this point trying to get you agree to basic biology which before you were denying. I had dropped "humans" out of it for this sole reason.

You see...this is what you do...you agreed that biological life starts at conception...but then you will later..oh let me just get the quote.

When i speak of life i am talking about the human experience. Remember life has a number of meanings, it has the strict biological meaning, which appears to be how you are using it and the more elaborate term denoting the sum of a human beings experiences or the legal definition of course.

So you turn right around and apply a different definition of "life" to humans.

And then look...you say you didn't agree to it.

No i agreed when biological life begins, i never disagreed on that point. When a human life begins is a whole other issue and i'm not going to repeat myself all over again.

This is why I had to take the baby steps with you.

First...do you agree that biological life begins at conception. You say yes.

Then I ask, because you are dancing around the issue:

MindSpin:
One question...are humans biological life???

If so, why would human life have any different starting point than biological life?

It is at this point you say that you aren't going to answer because you already have...but clearly you haven't as demonstrated above.

So sorry...I'm neither a troll or a liar. You appear to be the liar...and you dodge questions.

Anyway....

So i say clearly humans are biological life but when talking about an unborn fetus we must use different definitions as there are other things to take into account like the life the fetus will have, the effects on the mother etc.

Ok...so we can't use the same biological definition of when life begins because....we have to think about the quality of life the fetus might have???

REALLY?

Since when did we all become psychics? How do you KNOW what type of life the child is going to have??? This is just one of the most illogical arguments I have ever heard.

You can't foresee what your life will be like a year from now...but somehow people can tell if a child is going to have a good or bad life within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy??? WOW...tell me you don't really believe this.

I had thought of you as a little bit of a logical thinker...but if you think you can foresee the life of a child...then no...you aren't even a little logical.


OH...no there is more...the effects of the mother...like if having a child will cut in on her bar hopping time? Don't try to pull the mother's life being in danger...because you know I am fine with that. Or will it cost her too much to raise the child...have to raise it on her own??? Again...CAN YOU SEE THE FUTURE?


What other genius criteria do you have for declaring a life "human"????


And what happens when a women is pregnant, has an awesome job, has a loving boyfriend/husband, and there are no signs of anything abnormal with the pregnancy. She has the baby...and that week loses her job, boyfriend/husband leaves her for another women, and she finds out the kid has a mental disability. If we use your logic and "criteria" of seeing what type of life the child will live to determin if it is "human" or not..I guess she can determine it isn't because the kid MIGHT have a less than perfect life and she is now a single mother in financial trouble...I guess she can just kill it...right?



Don't abandon your logic to desperatly try to hold on to an indefensible position....out of everyone on this thread...I honestly think you are better than that because you have displayed at least some grasp on logic.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

This is what a number of these people don't quite understand, their own argument about using biology as the starting point is flawed. If we simply take being alive biologically as important then a cow embryo is as important as a human one, however of course they claim human life is sacred.

Oh ImaginaryReality...please don't abandon your logic.

I am getting tired of saying this.

I am not saying that the biological definition of the begining of life makes all life important.

We are all trying to do the same thing...determine the begining of human life. Because not even you think it is right for anyone to have an abortion at 9 months into the pregnancy. So we HAVE to determine that "beginning" somewhere.

You have picked an arbitrary bodily function to determine that starting point, brain waves...it is just a bodily function.

I have picked the biological definition of the beginning of life.


Does that mean I have to treat all life as special and never kill other life? No...It doesn't mean that at all. You are the one that want to make Humans special or sacred...you want to find something that distinguishes them from other animals...so you pick sentience or consciousness. I don't need an arbitrary bodily function to say I only want to protect human life...or that to me human life is "sacred"....I am a human...I am interested in protecting my own kind...our human laws in general only protect humans....there is nothing wrong with that.


We are both talking about HUMAN LIFE...let's stay on topic.


Like I said...don't abandon your logic to try to argue that you can foresee how good a childs life may be.

reply to post by Gorman91


But dont you understand than by protecting it you are actually DECREASING our collective potential to cure cancer and build cities? (Collective potential is all that matters from logical, biological and evolutionary standpoint).

Many people, but living in povetry and uneducated = low potential to cure cancer (local overpopulation caused by inability of abortions)

Few people, but living in very good conditions and highly educated = high potential to cure cancer


Few people, but living long, productive and healthy life due to embryonic stem cell therapy = high potential to cure cancer

Few people too (because ESC therapy uses embryos that wont be born without it either way), but living less long, healthy and productive life = lower potential to cure cancer

Quality over quantity, thats what logic says.

You are only looking at the individual potential, but not at global picture, which is illogical. Is it because you are using something other than simple biological logic, like your morality, to arrive at such conclusions?

reply to post by Maslo


Not at all. You have no way of knowing what person will be born whom will cure cancer. In theory, increased pressure from decreased quality produces increased quality from those pressure, without anyone dieing. This is why we have the phrase "necessity is the mother of invention".

Potential does not change because you are poor or uneducated. At any point, one person can discover one thing from any broad sense of experiences. The potential is always the same, even if the conditions are different. What you are viewing as potential is in fact not. It is Communal potential, and ignores the individual. Ignoring the individual is illogical. Quality versus quantity is irrelevant because the most quantity of humans can either be the highest quality or lowest quality. And the highest quality of humans can either be the highest quantity or the lowest quantity. The dumbest human on Earth can accidentaly mix two chemicals that cure cancer, document it, and be the person whom cures cancer. Similarly, the smartest human on Earth can spend their entire lives researching it and never find it. Their potential is the same to find it.

reply to post by Gorman91

Not at all. You have no way of knowing what person will be born whom will cure cancer.

Of course we have. If will be very probably an educated scientist, not uneducated unemployed son of a welfare mom or someone living in a third world slum. That is almost sure.

In theory, increased pressure from decreased quality produces increased quality from those pressure, without anyone dieing.

If this was true, then Africa would be the worlds superpower flying people into space, since quality of life is the lowest and pressure is the highest there.
Decreased quality of life in average decreases chances to fulfill potential. Sometimes they are individual exceptions, but overall quality is always decreased.

This is why we have the phrase "necessity is the mother of invention".

Necessity of something the invention deals with. Not lack of basic necessities.

Potential does not change because you are poor or uneducated. At any point, one person can discover one thing from any broad sense of experiences. The potential is always the same, even if the conditions are different. What you are viewing as potential is in fact not. It is Communal potential, and ignores the individual.

Potential thats not going to fulfill is no better than no potential at all. And communal potential is important, not individual potential. If you preserve one small individual potential, but at the cost of decreasing communal potential far more, you have harmed mankind in net effect, not benefited it.

reply to post by Gorman91

The dumbest human on Earth can accidentaly mix two chemicals that cure cancer, document it, and be the person whom cures cancer. Similarly, the smartest human on Earth can spend their entire lives researching it and never find it. Their potential is the same to find it.

The potential (probability) is not the same at all. The smartest human has far higher potential to do it in practice, to say otherwise is illogical.

Quality versus quantity is irrelevant because the most quantity of humans can either be the highest quality or lowest quality. And the highest quality of humans can either be the highest quantity or the lowest quantity.

average quality (potential) of an individual = resources / number of individuals

If number of individuals increases, their potential decreases if resources are not unlimited.

reply to post by MrXYZ


And a law is what determines what is human and what isn't?...

Talk about laughable....

reply to post by dawnstar


Why must one's right trump up over another's?...

Does the right of a Democrat trumps up the right of a Republican, or a Libertarian?...

When a woman is pregnant she is not giving up any rights...

Abortion is as much of a right as being rich is a right, which it isn't...

reply to post by Maslo


Probable. But not always the case. If there is the chance of just one, then they must all be saved. because you have no way of knowing. It's only fair.

Please, no colonialist attitudes. Africa has been raped by those that controlled it, preventing such a place. Look to where what I said worked. Specifically, America. Which did all those things.


Lack of basic necessities triggers invention.

You are assuming they will not fill that potential. They can. if they chose. And for that reason, they must be saved. Doesn't matter. A Human being is not some number of worth on a chart. It is a human. By being human, it is worth as much as the highest of saints. And they are worth as much as the lowest of scud.

Please do not mix probability with potential. Things can have a 0 probability, but their potential is still there.

Do not equate average either. For all are equal.