[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mak, even with all the stuff you and I argued about in the past I never thought you were never this ridiculously dumb.
Honest, I’m hurting here (for him) reading this Tig abortion stuff.
I mean…he’s going…Rogue Vampire on us here.[/quote]
Why? It’s his bed let him lay in it.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Mak, even with all the stuff you and I argued about in the past I never thought you were never this ridiculously dumb.
Honest, I’m hurting here (for him) reading this Tig abortion stuff.
I mean…he’s going…Rogue Vampire on us here.[/quote]
You don’t argue with Mak by the way…He just does drive by’s…He drops a couple of turds and checks back to see if anybody stepped in them. I have never seen him engage and stick with honest discussion ever.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Aside from that, though, I couldn’t help thinking some of the science didn’t quite jive. After a quick google search I’ve confirmed that this movie isn’t completely reliable. For example:
[/quote]
Your points are irrelevant. The fact is the abortion involves ripping the fetus limb from limb and then sucking up the remainder of the body and throwing the whole lot in the trash. It’s not “sad,” it is demented and evil. And it is certainly nothing like your ideological analogy of a room mate being kicked out into the cold. A correct analogy would have a parent kick the child out of the house, and to get to the outside the child has to first pass through a gigantic meat grinder. Oh, and the child has no other option but to go outside. But hey, it’s his problem at that point, right?
[quote]
Needless to say, it didn’t convert me.[/quote]
Certainly not surprising. Mark my words, though, one day you are going to be forced out of that ivory tower you’ve built for yourself, much like the room mate in your analogy. And reality is going to be a very different place. And only when it is too late you will wish you had better prepared for it. Instead, you spent all your time posturing and sneering, full of piss and hubris. Remember this. This is me proactively telling you I told you so.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Okay, so I finished Silent scream and while it is a very sad movie, it is an appeal to pathos. Rather than bridging a logical gap between it’s premise and conclusion, it conditions the mind of it’s viewers into compliance.
Aside from that, though, I couldn’t help thinking some of the science didn’t quite jive. After a quick google search I’ve confirmed that this movie isn’t completely reliable. For example:
[i]"CLAIM: The 12-week fetus makes purposeful movements (e.g., agitated movement in an attempt to avoid suction cannula).
FACTS: At this stage of pregnancy, all fetal movement is reflexive in nature rather than purposeful, since the latter requires cognition, which is the ability to perceive and know. For cognition to occur, the cortex (gray matter covering the brain) must be present, as well as myelinization (covering sheath) of the spinal cord and attached nerves, which is not the case.
An example of the reflex withdrawal without pain occurs in an anencephalic (absent brain) newborn. Another known example of the reflex movement at this stage of human pregnancy is thumb sucking in utero.
What is termed “frantic activity” by the fetus is a reflex response of the fetus resulting from movement of the uterus and its contents induced by operator manipulation of the suction curette or the ultrasound transducer on the abdomen. This same type of response would likely occur with any external stimulus. A one-cell organism such as an amoeba will reflexively move or display a withdrawal reaction when touched.
In addition, experts in ultrasonography and film technology have concluded that the videotape of the abortion was deliberately slowed down and subsequently speeded up to create an impression of hyperactivity.
CLAIM: Ultrasonogram depicts the open mouth of the fetus.
FACTS: The mouth of the fetus cannot be identified in the ultrasound image with certainty. The statement that the screen identifies the open mouth of the fetus is a subjective and misleading interpretation by Dr. Nathanson. His conclusion is not supportable.
CLAIM: The fetus emits “the silent scream.”
FACTS: A scream cannot occur without air in the lungs. Although primitive respiratory movements do occur in the later stages of gestation, crying or screaming cannot occur even then. In fact, a child born prematurely at 26?27 weeks’ gestation (24?25 weeks’ fetal age) cannot scream but occasionally emits weak cries.
CLAIM: A fetus is indistinguishable from any of the rest of us.
FACTS: A fetus of 12 weeks cannot in any way be compared to a fully formed functioning person. At this stage only rudiments of the organ systems are present. The fetus is unable to sustain life outside the woman’s womb, it is incapable of conscious thought; it is incapable of essential breathing. It is instead an in utero fetus with the potential of becoming a child.
CLAIM: Fetal head at 12 weeks requires the use of “crushing instruments” for extraction.
FACTS: At 12 weeks’ gestation (10 weeks’ fetal age) and even 1?2 weeks beyond, instrumentation other than a suction cannula is not required when abortion is properly performed. Cannulas for aspiration abortion come in varying sizes, and the larger sizes are adequate for withdrawing the contents of the uterus."[/i]
Needless to say, it didn’t convert me.[/quote]
You couldn’t be converted even if a 12 week old fetus crawled out of your sister’s womb, head-butted you and gave you a black eye, and then crawled back in Tigress Time’s uterus and smoked a cigar.[/quote]
… can I buy some crack off you?
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?
Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]
I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage. [/quote] Your own logic absolutely supports my previous assertion without further elaboration.
[/quote]
Jumping from premise to conclusion =/= and actual argument.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
Would you listen to yourself…
Well, you aren’t going down in flames with out a fight.[/quote]
You don’t think one should have the right to choose who they give to (if anyone)?
If you agree that Stalin had legitimate ownership over these “lines”, then it follows that he can chose to cut them. If you DON’T think he had a legitimate claim over them, then you would conclude that he doesn’t. That’s it.
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t suppose you notice you anaology fail here? You are ‘giving’ the doctor anything but money. You pay him to kill your kid, you not giving it to him. You’re hiring a hitman.[/quote]
Let me ask this again, if there was a way to abort the child but hook them up to a machine so that they continue normal growth, would you be opposed to abortion?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?
Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]
I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage. [/quote] Your own logic absolutely supports my previous assertion without further elaboration.
[/quote]
Jumping from premise to conclusion =/= and actual argument. [/quote]
And who makes you the Great Interpreter? You are saying the right to give = the right to take away but then give circumstances where it is ok or not. Flip your own logic back around again there bud.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Your points are irrelevant. The fact is the abortion involves ripping the fetus limb from limb and then sucking up the remainder of the body and throwing the whole lot in the trash. It’s not “sad,” it is demented and evil. And it is certainly nothing like your ideological analogy of a room mate being kicked out into the cold. A correct analogy would have a parent kick the child out of the house, and to get to the outside the child has to first pass through a gigantic meat grinder. Oh, and the child has no other option but to go outside. But hey, it’s his problem at that point, right? [/quote]
You know a child doesn’t feel pain until 20 weeks, right? And after 5 months, unless there is some horrible complication, I can’t see anyone opting for an abortion. It wouldn’t even be practical and I’d imagine you’d have a very hard time finding a doctor willing to do such a risky abortion.
Well, since I’m never going to need an abortion I don’t see how this will greatly affect me.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?
Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]
I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage. [/quote] Your own logic absolutely supports my previous assertion without further elaboration.
[/quote]
Jumping from premise to conclusion =/= and actual argument. [/quote]
And who makes you the Great Interpreter? You are saying the right to give = the right to take away but then give circumstances where it is ok or not. Flip your own logic back around again there bud.
[/quote]
It sounds like you actually ARE saying that if you choose to give x to person Y for an undisclosed amount of time voluntarily, person Y is now entitled to receive X until a time of their choosing. Is that what you believe?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?
Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]
I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage. [/quote] Your own logic absolutely supports my previous assertion without further elaboration.
[/quote]
Jumping from premise to conclusion =/= and actual argument. [/quote]
And who makes you the Great Interpreter? You are saying the right to give = the right to take away but then give circumstances where it is ok or not. Flip your own logic back around again there bud.
[/quote]
It sounds like you actually ARE saying that if you choose to give x to person Y for an undisclosed amount of time voluntarily, person Y is now entitled to receive X until a time of their choosing. Is that what you believe?[/quote]
It should sound that way because it was your twisted logic I applied to another scenario and is exactly what you said. Keep your logic in the context of my original scenario and lets discuss it.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?
Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]
I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage. [/quote] Your own logic absolutely supports my previous assertion without further elaboration.
[/quote]
Jumping from premise to conclusion =/= and actual argument. [/quote]
And who makes you the Great Interpreter? You are saying the right to give = the right to take away but then give circumstances where it is ok or not. Flip your own logic back around again there bud.
[/quote]
It sounds like you actually ARE saying that if you choose to give x to person Y for an undisclosed amount of time voluntarily, person Y is now entitled to receive X until a time of their choosing. Is that what you believe?[/quote]
It should sound that way because it was your twisted logic I applied to another scenario and is exactly what you said.
[/quote]
That’s the exact opposite of what I said. My argument this entire time has been that person Y is not entitled to X just because he had been given it before.
Are you sure you’re comprehending my posts?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
Would you listen to yourself…
Well, you aren’t going down in flames with out a fight.[/quote]
You don’t think one should have the right to choose who they give to (if anyone)?
If you agree that Stalin had legitimate ownership over these “lines”, then it follows that he can chose to cut them. If you DON’T think he had a legitimate claim over them, then you would conclude that he doesn’t. That’s it.[/quote]
I am literally laughing out loud…At least chuckling. Your the only one I know of so far who would absolve Stalin for the starving and murdering of 10 million people in an attempt to supported a failing argument.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
So following your logic here, if you had a baby, decided you didn’t want it anymore at around the age of 3 or so and let it die, that would be ok because it came from you and it’s life is yours to take?
Fortunately in the real world, people who disagree with this sentiment would take your kid, put you in jail and force their reality on you so really your reality of relativity is just a cancerous tangent of truth. How does that sit?[/quote]
I never said anything about it’s life being mine to take. Simply ignoring your kid is not the same as relinquishing responsibility over it. It the case of abortion you give it to a doctor, in the case of a born child you would give it to an orphanage. [/quote] Your own logic absolutely supports my previous assertion without further elaboration.
[/quote]
Jumping from premise to conclusion =/= and actual argument. [/quote]
And who makes you the Great Interpreter? You are saying the right to give = the right to take away but then give circumstances where it is ok or not. Flip your own logic back around again there bud.
[/quote]
It sounds like you actually ARE saying that if you choose to give x to person Y for an undisclosed amount of time voluntarily, person Y is now entitled to receive X until a time of their choosing. Is that what you believe?[/quote]
It should sound that way because it was your twisted logic I applied to another scenario and is exactly what you said.
[/quote]
That’s the exact opposite of what I said. My argument this entire time has been that person Y is not entitled to X just because he had been given it before.
Are you sure you’re comprehending my posts?[/quote]
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t suppose you notice you anaology fail here? You are ‘giving’ the doctor anything but money. You pay him to kill your kid, you not giving it to him. You’re hiring a hitman.[/quote]
Let me ask this again, if there was a way to abort the child but hook them up to a machine so that they continue normal growth, would you be opposed to abortion?[/quote]
If you remove a child from the womb in to another environment that will sustain it’s life and growth, then that child wasn’t aborted.
And yes, I would support sustaining the child’s life to killing it any day of the week.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, since I’m never going to need an abortion I don’t see how this will greatly affect me. [/quote]
You’re too smart to not know that I’m not talking about abortion.
Have fun “debating.”
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
… Sorry, I brought up Casey Anthony? I’m pretty sure that was you.
You don’t see a difference between not keeping something alive and killing said thing? So taking someone off life support is murder? If you see someone bleeding to death, but don’t save them, did you kill them, or did you just not save them?
If you force a baby to be born live and not support it, but also DON’t give it up, then yes, you starved it to death. But if you relinquish ownership (or responsibility, if you don’t like the idea of owning people) of the child and give it to an orphanage (or doctor, in the case of abortion) then you aren’t killing it.
Your abortionist story is irrelevant. He killed the baby, not the mother. All she did was stop supporting it. Yes, ending the support will result in the baby dieing, but it’s only murder in the same way taking someone off life support is murder, or how NOT saving someone from already dieing is murder.[/quote]
You know come to think of Stalin didn’t kill those 10 million people in the Ukraine. He just cut off their supply lines so they starved to death on their own…It’s not like he owed them a living, they never did anything for him except be a torn in his side. They could have been better hunters and gatherers. So I guess you managed to absolved Stalin…Now that is impressive.
[/quote]
Let’s look at this example. If these lines where made by the people themselves and Stalin cut them, then yes he is starving them. If these lines came from Stalin’s own good will then he has every right to cut them off for whatever reason he sees fit. [/quote]
Would you listen to yourself…
Well, you aren’t going down in flames with out a fight.[/quote]
You don’t think one should have the right to choose who they give to (if anyone)?
If you agree that Stalin had legitimate ownership over these “lines”, then it follows that he can chose to cut them. If you DON’T think he had a legitimate claim over them, then you would conclude that he doesn’t. That’s it.[/quote]
I am literally laughing out loud…At least chuckling. Your the only one I know of so far who would absolve Stalin for the starving and murdering of 10 million people in an attempt to supported a failing argument. [/quote]
You have this convenient habit of ignoring the formula in favour of the variables.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Your three year old is not entitled to life moving forward just because his dad created and had been sustaining it in the past.
Lets get on with it.[/quote]
It may come off cruel, but I don’t think anyone is entitled to anything.
Unless, of course, you have some sort of written agreement, like custody for example. If a woman signed something saying she would not abort her baby, then I would not support her abortion if she decided to get one anyway.
It’s also worth mentioning that I don’t think people who are against abortion should be forced to pay for abortions via taxation.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t suppose you notice you anaology fail here? You are ‘giving’ the doctor anything but money. You pay him to kill your kid, you not giving it to him. You’re hiring a hitman.[/quote]
Let me ask this again, if there was a way to abort the child but hook them up to a machine so that they continue normal growth, would you be opposed to abortion?[/quote]
If you remove a child from the womb in to another environment that will sustain it’s life and growth, then that child wasn’t aborted.
And yes, I would support sustaining the child’s life to killing it any day of the week.[/quote]
Then you don’t oppose abortion (as far as the removal of the unborn child that is), but rather the killing of the fetus.
As it stands right now, however, we do not have a means to keep the child alive post-extraction, so a mercy killing is the lesser of two evils (as opposed to letting it die on its own).
So, if you are not opposed to fetal extraction and you agree that a mercy killing is better than leaving it to die on its own, then we are in agreement.
