Originally posted by googlefudgeI feel like Stewie from 'Famliy Guy' overwatching the whole scene and telling Brian the dog , "Never Brian!!! Dont even think tha.... Oh!! Oh I get it. You were being rhetorical weren't you? weren't you?!!"
You're enjoying this far too much....
Then again so am I...
Is that wrong? ;-)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by karoly aczelOk that made me laugh out loud...
I feel like Stewie from 'Famliy Guy' overwatching the whole scene and telling Brian the dog , "Never Brian!!! Dont even think tha.... Oh!! Oh I get it. You were being rhetorical weren't you? weren't you?!!"
Which is bad cos it's way past midnight here...
I think I am going to call it a night now.
Originally posted by vivifyNo need to wish it, just go ask your parents. They're intimately acquainted with what it's like to have a child who can't think.
Classy. I wish someone with a child born with this condition could read your post, before shaking their head in disgust. That parent who cared for thee years for the boy born as an anencepahlic infant, would think you're a monster.
My point was to prove that you are morally reprihensible person, and done, unfortunately, with much success. Your views com ...[text shortened]... ot from logic or any real discussion on morality, but from a place of being inhumane.
Later.
Originally posted by vivifyMaybe he is a Star Trek Junkie like this one:
So you insist on debating the moral status of fictional characters? Wow.
Said fictional Vulcan acts like a human does; so both it, and it's unborn child, at any stage of development, would deserve moral consideration.
You've been owned on your stupid example.
Originally posted by vivifyEPIC FAIL
Classy. I wish someone with a child born with this condition could read your post, before shaking their head in disgust. That parent who cared for thee years for the boy born as an anencepahlic infant, would think you're a monster.
My point was to prove that you are morally reprihensible person, and done, unfortunately, with much success. Your views com ...[text shortened]... ot from logic or any real discussion on morality, but from a place of being inhumane.
Later.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrExactly what I'd expect from someone with no real argument for his position: the logical equivilent of sticking fingers in yours and screaming.
No need to wish it, just go ask your parents. They're intimately acquainted with what it's like to have a child who can't think.
But one good thing came from this: you admitted that someone with no hope of ever having a personality should stil be given some sort of social obligation; this being the case, you logically have no reason to object to giving this same social resspect to a developing embryo.
QED.
Originally posted by vivifyThe reasons I provided above don't apply to early fetuses in abortion cases. Regarding the first reason, it's the parents making the decision, not some third party. Regarding the second reason, there is no generalized constraint on behavior towards early fetuses, as the current abortion debate attests. To say otherwise, in this context, is question-begging. It's only the third reason where there is some traction, but you'd have to show that early-term abortions reliably indicate something defective about the character of the mother. I don't see that they do. But if you have an argument.... (then again, you're not so good with those).
Exactly what I'd expect from someone with no real argument for his position: the logical equivilent of sticking fingers in yours and screaming.
But one good thing came from this: you admitted that someone with no hope of ever having a personality should stil be given some sort of social obligation; this being the case, you logically have no reason to object to giving this same social resspect to a developing embryo.
QED.
And you still haven't answered the questions I've asked you more than once. I understand that you're confused, and don't want to appear foolish three times in a row. But try just once more! It will be fun, I promise.
Originally posted by vivifySaid fictional Vulcan acts like a human does; so both it, and it's unborn child, at any stage of development, would deserve moral consideration.
So you insist on debating the moral status of fictional characters? Wow.
Said fictional Vulcan acts like a human does; so both it, and it's unborn child, at any stage of development, would deserve moral consideration.
You've been owned on your stupid example.
Huh? So an unborn Vulcan, at any stage of development, would deserve moral consideration because one of its parents "acts like a human does"? Or are you saying that an unborn Vulcan, at any stage of development, "acts like a human does"? Either way: WTF are you talking about? You're just making crap up as you go now, aren't you?
You never addressed my previous post about your speciesist view. Based on this, however, it seems you would extend moral consideration to other species beyond humans. That's good. But your supporting explanation as to why sure doesn't make much sense.
