3 edits
Originally posted by SleepyguyNo. As already stated:
Me either, but we're not talking about a fly are we? Is it a human being?
A non-viable fetus cannot exist outside of the confines of the woman's body and as it is her body she is free to do with what is inside it as she pleases.
Until Thing B can maintain an existence outside Human A's sphere of self-autonomy, it is not human.
At its earliest stages of development, a human embryo is no more advanced than a bacteria. Do you feel moral pangs when you use Listerine to kill the germs that cause bad breath?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not talking about zygotes, embryos, bacteria, or flies. I think you continue to pull in that direction because it takes you to a place where you don't have to talk about killing the baby in the picture.
No. As already stated:
A non-viable fetus cannot exist outside of the confines of the woman's body and as it is her body she is free to do with what is inside it as she pleases.
Until Thing B can maintain an existence outside Human A's sphere of self-autonomy, it is not human.
At its earliest stages of de ...[text shortened]... teria. Do you feel moral pangs when you use Listerine to kill the germs that cause bad breath?
That you can look at the picture and then claim it is not human is completely irrational. Just wait 2 weeks and what was once just an inconvenience to be ripped apart and discarded is suddenly a human being with natural rights! That is your argument, and it rests on arbitrary ground.
Even you, I think, admitted that you would have moral pangs about killing the "thing B" in the picture. Why would that be? I wonder.
You are dishonest even with yourself.
Originally posted by SleepyguyAppeals to Emotion are a logical fallacy. The loaded language you use might be a big hit in your irrational right wing circles, but this is the Debates forum, not the Hysterical Forum.
I'm not talking about zygotes, embryos, bacteria, or flies. I think you continue to pull in that direction because it takes you to a place where you don't have to talk about killing the baby in the picture.
That you can look at the picture and then claim it is not human is completely irrational. Just wait 2 weeks and what was once just an inconvenienc ...[text shortened]... have moral pangs about killing the "thing B" in the picture. Why would that be? I wonder.
Nor is what I would personally choose to do (I, of course, could never have such a choice) relevant. There are many things I wouldn't choose to do (like play the Caro-Kann) without an accompanying belief that those who do should be subject to criminal prosecution. Try to remember that distinction (it eludes whodey).
There's nothing "arbitrary" about the difference between something that can maintain a physical existence outside an autonomous being's body and something that cannot. It's part of nature, hence "Natural Rights".
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is not hysterical nor irrational to talk about whether it is right or wrong to kill innocent human life. It is your transparent rationalization that such a decision is akin to something as mundane as deciding to play the Caro-Kann that is irrational.
Appeals to Emotion are a logical fallacy. The loaded language you use might be a big hit in your irrational right wing circles, but this is the Debates forum, not the Hysterical Forum.
Nor is what I would personally choose to do (I, of course, could never have such a choice) relevant. There are many things I wouldn't choose to do (like p ous being's body and something that cannot. It's part of nature, hence "Natural Rights".
And you are of course right that there is "nothing arbitrary about the difference between something that can maintain a physical existence outside an autonomous being's body and something that cannot". But, as always, you are dishonestly disagreeing with a point I never made.
The point I made is that the "viability" argument is a very arbitrary means to declare that someone is not a human being.
1 edit
Originally posted by Sleepyguy"the difference between something that can maintain a physical existence outside an autonomous being's body and something that cannot" IS the "viability argument".
It is not hysterical nor irrational to talk about whether it is right or wrong to kill innocent human life. It is your transparent rationalization that such a decision is akin to something as mundane as deciding to play the Caro-Kann that is irrational.
And you are of course right that there is "[/i]nothing arbitrary about the difference between somethi viability" argument is a very arbitrary means to declare that someone is not a human being.
I realize a fanatic like yourself refuses to accept that there is any possible position to take but what you do, but you first would have to show that a non-viable fetus is a "human life" before you assert that to terminate a pregnancy is "killing innocent human life". You haven't even tried preferring to merely rant and raise irrelevant points like what other people's personal preferences are. The abortion debate in the US comes down to the question: Do you think that a government should be able to impose criminal penalties on a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy? The question regards the scope of legitimate governmental power, not personal preferences.
Originally posted by no1marauderJust as you would first have to show that a non-viable fetus is NOT a "human life" before you assert that destroying it is not "killing and innocent human life".
...you first would have to show that a non-viable fetus is a "human life" before you assert that to terminate a pregnancy is "killing innocent human life"...
It's a judgment call. Somehow you can look at a picture of a 22 week old fetus and declare that it is not a human life merely because it will not be able to breathe on it's own for a couple more weeks. That is a very arbitrary judgment call.
Would you make the assertion that an injured adult on some kind of life support during recovery was not a human life for the duration of time they were on life support?
Originally posted by irontigranYou have a reference, or is this a lie that they didn't say this, and you
i think if a 16 year old gets raped, and becomes pregnant, that she should still be but to death (in states that those rules apply) if she chooses to abort for baby murder. no more victim card. the rapists child must be born, or else he wouldve killed her if he wanted the girl dead.
mccain/palin 08
are in fact lying through your teeth by suggesting they did in this year?
Kelly