26 Dec '16 00:33>
Originally posted by EladarYou were talking about people.
You were talking about abortion.
Originally posted by no1marauderExcept any eviction that involves killing the tenant is generally considered murder, a crime.
A tiresome dodge. That something is contained within her body is sufficient. You are free to evict people from your property, one should not the principle be applicable to the far more intimate confines of one's own body? You've provided no rational reason to differentiate the case of a ZEF from that of a germ or tapeworm.
The effect of a ZEF on a wom ...[text shortened]... her people adopt a belief based almost exclusively on religious principles is decidedly unclear.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI've argued my position. The issue here is that my reasons are not sufficient according to you.
I can't "prove" that's it's "objectively correct" (whatever that means) to seek to minimize harm, but it is a position I'm willing to argue. You don't have to agree. All am I asking is that your argue your own position.
Originally posted by blaze8492No - "do not kill zygotes because you shouldn't kill zygotes" is not arguing your position.
I've argued my position. The issue here is that my reasons are not sufficient according to you.
The good thing about my position, is that under my position, you are guaranteed your rights and your life for all time. I can't arbitrarily decide that you forfeit your rights, and you can't arbitrarily decide I forfeit mine. Your position, however, is sub ...[text shortened]... Life extends to people based on a set of criteria you have decided upon. I claim no such power.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
No - "do not kill zygotes because you shouldn't kill zygotes" is not arguing your position.
The bad thing about your position is that you have arbitrarily decided that people who don't want to have children or feel like they are not capable of rearing them should be forced to do so. Given that zygotes have no interests that can be protected, this vio ...[text shortened]... ee with the position that you can't "arbitrarily" decide when killing others would be justified.
Originally posted by blaze8492The argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
The argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
Well, perhaps they shouldn't engage in actions they know might result in pregnancy. Oh sure, there are methods to prevent it. But at it's core, sex has one biological function, and only one: reproduction. So ...[text shortened]...
EDIT: There's also such a thing as a "Duty to Retreat," which is enforced in several US states.
Originally posted by blaze8492Maybe you should try actually reading what I wrote. The fact that modern medicine has greatly reduced the chance of death in childbirth is irrelevant to the question of reproductive rights unless you think that what a right is can be altered by technology. Reproduction would no longer be "voluntary" if you got your wish, so talking about it as a voluntary choice is ironic.
Except any eviction that involves killing the tenant is generally considered murder, a crime.
As to a rational reason, your argument makes no sense scientifically. Biologically, a zygote is an entirely different organism compared to a germ or tapeworm. No scientist would ever equate the two, they function differently and are entirely different in ev ...[text shortened]... And who ever said anything about religious principles? I never mentioned them, that's for sure.
Originally posted by blaze8492Sex has the consequence that a woman might get pregnant.
The argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."
Well, perhaps they shouldn't engage in actions they know might result in pregnancy. Oh sure, there are methods to prevent it. But at it's core, sex has one biological function, and only one: reproduction. So ...[text shortened]...
EDIT: There's also such a thing as a "Duty to Retreat," which is enforced in several US states.
Originally posted by checkbaiterYou mean the same judge that had his Son murdered?
All you who support and defend abortion or killing babies will one day face the Judge.
You can compromise and argue all day long about consciousness, when is it a person, etc., but deep or maybe not so deep inside you know it is wrong and you will be held accountable.
Originally posted by blaze8492If the mother starves herself to death... is the foetus / zig-thing gonna live?
Empirically false. Do your unfertilized eggs randomly spit out babies for you? Do your skin cells grow into full fledged humans at random on your arm?
The zygote is scientifically a completely separate organism from the mother. You cannot prove, with science, that it is equivalent to any other cell in your body.
Originally posted by blaze8492Well nobody would dispute that argument is logically valid. What we dispute is the premises.
The argument is "Zygotes are Human, Human Rights are guaranteed by virtue of being a member of the species, therefore Zygotes get Human Rights."