[quote]pushharder wrote:
Many times before.[/quote]
I’m not getting your point.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Old news, Tigger, old news.
Try something fresh and innovative, will ya?[/quote]
An old argument =/= an invalid argument. Do you have an actual counter argument?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]
Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.
It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).
If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).
[/quote]
I would just like to add a personal amendment. The right to life is a natural right. That right comes from each individual’s humanity even if the source of humanity is not a creator. I’ve demonstrated this above several times.
One human cannot deny the right to life of another human without simultaneously denying their own right to life(and by extension liberty and property).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Many times before.[/quote]
I’m not getting your point.[/quote]
No worries. Plenty of others will.[/quote]
Well that’s great, you’ve convinced everyone whom already agrees with you anyway… congratulations?
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]
Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.
It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).
If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).
[/quote]
I would just like to add a personal amendment. The right to life is a natural right. That right comes from each individual’s humanity even if the source of humanity is not a creator. I’ve demonstrated this above several times.
One human cannot deny the right to life of another human without simultaneously denying their own right to life(and by extension liberty and property).
[/quote]
If this is true then it also applies to the fetus. That is, it doesn’t have the right to forcefully extract the life force of its mother without permission and by doing so it relinquishes its right to life.
Again, there’s a difference between killing and not keeping alive. The fetus is otherwise dead unless kept alive. This is not the case with a birthed human.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Many times before.[/quote]
I’m not getting your point.[/quote]
No worries. Plenty of others will.[/quote]
Well that’s great, you’ve convinced everyone whom already agrees with you anyway… congratulations?[/quote]
Time for bed, Tigger. Sleep tight, son.[/quote]
Lol you spend more time talking down to your opponents then actually giving coherent arguments. This is very telling of your character and I hope the rest of you are taking note.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Lol you spend more time talking down to your opponents then actually giving coherent arguments. This is very telling of your character and I hope the rest of you are taking note.
[/quote]
When you make idiotic statements expect to be treated like an idiot, Pittbulll, Jr.[/quote]
^ Case and point.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
If this is true then it also applies to the fetus. That is, it doesn’t have the right to forcefully extract the life force of its mother without permission and by doing so it relinquishes its right to life.
Again, there’s a difference between killing and not keeping alive. The fetus is otherwise dead unless kept alive. This is not the case with a birthed human.[/quote]
[/quote]
If ones right to life is predicated on respecting the same right for others, then feeding of another persons life voids this right in you. It’s in TooHuman’s own words =/
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]
Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.
It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).
If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).
[/quote]
You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.
[/quote]
Physically removing an adult from, food, water, or oxygen and placing them in a container with out either is obviously homicide. The unborn human requires the uterus to survive in the same way a born human requires oxygen, food, and water to survive. To remove an unborn human from the mother’s uterus with the intention of discarding it is most definitely homicide(KILLing a human).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tiggy, you’re pretty much done on this thread.
Buenos noches, chiquito.[/quote]
Well, my points haven’t been refuted so I can only imagine you’ve arrived at that conclusion based solely on how much you’d want that to be true.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]
Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.
It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).
If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).
[/quote]
You’ve missed my point. Whether you are a person or not, you don’t have the right to force someone else to physically support your life. If a fetus is a person, then this includes them as well. There’s a difference between “killing” something and “not keeping it alive”. If you kicked your room mate out and as a result he starved to death did you kill them? No, you just stopped letting them mooch off you and they were unable to cope.
[/quote]
Physically removing an adult from, food, water, or oxygen and placing them in a container with out either is obviously homicide. The unborn human requires the uterus to survive in the same way a born human requires oxygen, food, and water to survive. To remove an unborn human from the mother’s uterus with the intention of discarding it is most definitely homicide(KILLing a human). [/quote]
I’m not talking about putting them in a container where they can’t get those things. What are you talking about?
The analogy was you merely stop supporting them and leave them to their own doings. In both cases they die, not because you killed them but but because they couldn’t manage on their own.
Lets look at this another way. Lets say I give you $1 a day every day. There’s no contract stating I must do this, I just do. If I decide to stop giving you this daily dollar and you eventually go broke is it my fault you’re broke? Do I owe you that money? Obviously not, so why is that the case with blood?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tiggy, you’re pretty much done on this thread.
Buenos noches, chiquito.[/quote]
Well, my points haven’t been refuted so I can only imagine you’ve arrived at that conclusion based solely on how much you’d want that to be true. [/quote]
Your “points” are so absurd they need no refutation.[/quote]
And another tally for the “talking down to” side of the chart, leaving the “actual counter-point” side depressingly bare.
Why exactly do you bother talking to me if you have no intention of providing an argument?
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
So, I don’t think how one defines human is particularly important. It doesn’t matter to me if the unborn child is “human” or not.[/quote]
Sorry in Western Civilization a person has rights, the most important is life. It’s our Roman, Jewish, and Christian roots.
It most definitely matters if an unborn child is a person or human (the latter being part of the former).
If we do not protect the most exploitable, innocent, voiceless, and helpless of persons that doesn’t speak well for the future of the rest of society (that would be us, the persons actually arguing about if a person willfully killing an innocent person is a viable choice).
[/quote]
I would just like to add a personal amendment. The right to life is a natural right. That right comes from each individual’s humanity even if the source of humanity is not a creator. I’ve demonstrated this above several times.
One human cannot deny the right to life of another human without simultaneously denying their own right to life(and by extension liberty and property).
[/quote]
If this is true then it also applies to the fetus. That is, it doesn’t have the right to forcefully extract the life force of its mother without permission and by doing so it relinquishes its right to life.
Again, there’s a difference between killing and not keeping alive. The fetus is otherwise dead unless kept alive. This is not the case with a birthed human.[/quote]
Nonsense. This “life-force” you are referring to can be quantified. It is the property of the mother, namely the nutrients in her blood. Your body is a piece of property, your most fundamental piece. The right to life is the right not to be killed by the actions of others. There is no mystical “life-force” the baby is taking. Not anymore then your life force is in your blood, bile, or semen. That notions is very backwards and hearkens back to the times when people would be bled by leaches in barber shops and Edo-era samurai would stop themselves from cumming in order to preserve their “life-force”.
The child absolutely has the right to live in the environment the mother created it in. It has that right in the the same way the mother has the right not to be forcibly removed from the Earth’s oxygen rich atmosphere.