Pro-Lifer Throws Incendiary Device at PP

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Oleena: Do you believe in self-determination?[/quote]

What do you mean by this^^^? Do you mean do I believe it’s possible? Do I believe it should happen? Do I believe it does happen?

Also, what is your definition of self-determination, before we accidently start an argument that eventually boils down to definition. (I will use your definition and promise not to argue another)[/quote]

Do you believe that humans possess the ability and the right to determine their own destinies?
[/quote]

I don’t know. On one hand, there is more and more evidence that brain chemicals greatly effect mood, which effect choices, thus if the person isn’t aware of how to manipulate brain chemicals or their chemicals are effected by genetics, they do not completely have the ability to determine their own destinies. Also, a person born into one place in the world doesn’t have the ability to reach the same life that a person born in another place does, so this limits their ability to control their destiny regardless of their bodily limits (think Afghanistan women).

Now your wording was, do I believe they possess they right to determine their own destinies. Realistically, not everyone in the world possesses the ability to determine their own destinies (Afghan women are once again a great example). You didn’t ask if I think they should receive that right, you just asked if they already possess it, so I would have to answer no.

Basically, there isn’t a blanket answer. It’s always situational because there are too many factors that effect it.

[/quote]

Oleena, you’re being disengenuous. It’s not a difficult question and it does not require 200 words of dissimulation to finally dodge.

Don’t try and read where I’m going or leave yourself a bunch of outs just in case. If what you believe is true it should rest on firm enough ground to stand on its own without your protecting it like, ahem, a mother.

When given the choice, are humans able to make their own decisions, yes or no?

And for the record, I did indeed say “should.” Here is my exact question, once again, with emphasis:

Do you believe that humans possess the ability and the right to determine their own destinies?

I really can’t make it any simpler than it already is. You and I both know why you don’t want to take a definite stand on this issue, though, don’t we?

422

This seems relevant:

423

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
I don’t see an unborn baby as a person.
[/quote]

Thank you for sharing with the class. And, why do you not see an unborn baby as a person?[/quote]

Lack of self-awareness. [/quote].

Newborns lack self-awareness too.

As do people in a coma.

Certain of the elderly suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia…

Severely retarded people.

Again: Based upon your arguments so far, you are arguing for eugenics.
[/quote]

To me, this is all a matter of degrees.

You can hide behind technicalities all you want & even call me an outright Nazi if you wish (since you seem so keen on such rhetoric/emotive labels).

If I was involved in an horrific car accident & had little to zero chance of recovery, (kept alive only by a life support machine) I’d expect to be switched off at some stage.

[/quote]

What if you had an excellent chance of recovery?

Notions do not matter. And I am not pretending. Indeed, you need to take your own advice, because when we are dealing in matters of life and death, the onus is on you to clearly, unequivocally define exactly how this entity you are ripping limb from limb is not a “person.” So far you most certainly have not. The best you’ve come up with is “lack of self-awareness.” 3 month old babies also lack self-awareness. Or did something wonderful happen as the non-person was transformed into a full fledged human person upon passing through the magical vaginal threshold?

Red herring. Start a new thread. [/quote]

Like I said at the very beginnning of my post, for me this is a ‘matter of degrees’. The exact point at which it’s ethical to abort is NOT what I’m arguing here.

Just imagine a world full of FORCED births<<<< Tantamount to medical rape IMHO.

424

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
And btw, the word “unbiased” means that you are not given to one side of an argument more than another, Kneed.
[/quote]

Does not work that way.

What would you say about someone who claimed to be unbiased when it came to rape?

[/quote]
Yes, it really does.

Once again, a blanket statement that doesn’t always apply. Just because it’s hard for someone to be unbiased about one thing, doesn’t mean that they are unbiased about all thing. Far less people are capable of acting unbiased about rape than they are about abortion.

425

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Oleena: Do you believe in self-determination?[/quote]

What do you mean by this^^^? Do you mean do I believe it’s possible? Do I believe it should happen? Do I believe it does happen?

Also, what is your definition of self-determination, before we accidently start an argument that eventually boils down to definition. (I will use your definition and promise not to argue another)[/quote]

Do you believe that humans possess the ability and the right to determine their own destinies?
[/quote]

I don’t know. On one hand, there is more and more evidence that brain chemicals greatly effect mood, which effect choices, thus if the person isn’t aware of how to manipulate brain chemicals or their chemicals are effected by genetics, they do not completely have the ability to determine their own destinies. Also, a person born into one place in the world doesn’t have the ability to reach the same life that a person born in another place does, so this limits their ability to control their destiny regardless of their bodily limits (think Afghanistan women).

Now your wording was, do I believe they possess they right to determine their own destinies. Realistically, not everyone in the world possesses the ability to determine their own destinies (Afghan women are once again a great example). You didn’t ask if I think they should receive that right, you just asked if they already possess it, so I would have to answer no.

Basically, there isn’t a blanket answer. It’s always situational because there are too many factors that effect it.

[/quote]

Oleena, you’re being disengenuous. It’s not a difficult question and it does not require 200 words of dissimulation to finally dodge.

Don’t try and read where I’m going or leave yourself a bunch of outs just in case. If what you believe is true it should rest on firm enough ground to stand on its own without your protecting it like, ahem, a mother.

When given the choice, are humans able to make their own decisions, yes or no?

And for the record, I did indeed say “should.” Here is my exact question, once again, with emphasis:

Do you believe that humans possess the ability and the right to determine their own destinies?

I really can’t make it any simpler than it already is. You and I both know why you don’t want to take a definite stand on this issue, though, don’t we?
[/quote]

Cortes, I am being honest and respectful with you. I’m trying to give you the most thoroughly thought out answer I am capable of and I’m sorry if this isn’t so for you, but for me it’s not a black and white, yes, no answer. It’s not that I don’t WANT to take a definite stand on the answer; my life and inner life would be a thousand times easier if I did. After giving it thought, I simply CAN’T with the reasoning capabilities I was born with. Do you understand how that could be possible, in all honestly, given serious consideration to the topic?

I already answered your question as realistically as I am capable of. It is a difficult question. If it’s not for you, it’s because you aren’t thinking about it or are seriously lacking a lot of data.

426

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Yes, and I’m sure the babies I have seen in ultra-sound abortions (the youngest one I have seen was a baby at 13-14 weeks) where it shows them pulling away from the suction tube as their body is sucked apart and through the straw are really unaware and feeling the love as their body is pulled apart sometimes in a few seconds, sometimes much longer. [/quote]

Interesting. So, I looked up some data on this one, and it turns out that at 12 weeks all of the nerves are fully formed. I would guess that at this point the fetus has the brain capabilities of a small, basal animal.

I will admit that it would be cruel to kill a fetus over 8 weeks old if a pain killer wasn’t used first (which confuses me as to why it wouldn’t be used), and over 12 weeks would be wrong.

Will you admit that under 4 weeks a developing fetus is not a person? If not, why? Do not use the argument of potential. I am saying, at that stage, that day, is it or isn’t it?

427

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And did you really just say “t-vixen?” [/quote]

Yes I did just say T-vixen. You know…the women who are on this site. Like I said a few posts ago to knee, who oddly enough failed to respond, its real easy to sit on your side of the fence when the situation in question can not happen to you isnt it?

428

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here are two thoughts.

If some scum of the earth murders a pregnant woman guess what our American Justice System charges that scum of the earth with? If you said double homicide then you win the Weider Pro 400 Squat Cage capable of holding 210 lbs. plus 45 lb Olympic bar.

So how can this cockmite be charged with double homicide if what is inside the woman is not human life?

Secondly… if you have to kill it to keep it from growing then it must be LIFE. We go through different body stages but it’s all good. If I were the girl next door, 20 years old blond I would not sleep with Hugh Hefner. But he is still human life, even if he drools & wears depends.

HUMAN LIFE. It’s 2011 we have the technology to witness the miracle that happens inside a woman’s pregnant body. Pictures inside a woman’s belly shows the baby becoming large enough to be seen & at 8 weeks we see arms, legs and major joints forming. Toes and fingers are distinct. HUMAN LIFE it’s all good, even if Hugh Hefner wears depends.

Don’t buy into the lie that it’s not human. For the love of… what did you spill your seed in if it’s not human… http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/03/21/sc_man_who_had_sex_with_horse_released_from_prison/
[/quote]

You mean the same justice system that ruled on Roe vs. Wade and that has made abortion legal in this country? Somewhat of a contradiction. [/quote]

Yes, that is Precisely his point. Also, I completely agree with his point about life. We can debate all we want on whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a person. And we can debate all we want whether or not said zygote, embryo, or fetus is a form of life that deserves protection under the law. But please don’t be spouting off nonsense that it’s not human or not alive/“life”.

I think everybody here gets that already, and we’re just getting a little loose with the language in the heat of debate, but that little piece of ignorance drives me absolutely up a wall when I see it. There is zero scientific grounds for denying those two pieces of information.[/quote]

And when I hear people spouting off about how they feel they can limit the rights of others…well as you said, that little piece of ignorance drives me absolutely up a wall. I think we need a few more t-vixens in hear to see how they feel about someone telling them what they can and cant do with their bodies.[/quote]

Liberals are such one step thinkers. Don’t make this so easy. This lie that you can do with your body whatever you want does it include prostitution? No you can’t do that with your own body because laws govern against it.

How about having sex out in the middle of a mall with your own body. Hey it’s your body, nobody is going to tell you what you can do with your body will they? No. No.

Inject steroids into your own body without a doctors prescription? No you cant do that with your own body. How about giving yourself a heaping dose of heroin, crack or meth because after all it’s your body? No you can’t, even with your own body.

Drink alcohol at age 12 because you know you have anxiety and stress, and it’s your body. No NO, they don’t allow you to do that with your body.

Let’s sell your 1 month old baby girl to a stranger, after all it came out of your body and it’s yours?? Isn’t it?

No it isn’t and the sooner feminists grasp this concept they will grasp what they are doing in murdering a baby. It is a separate being growing inside your body. Just because it can’t fend for itself, feed itself doesn’t mean that isn’t the miracle of life. No different then in a freak accident you become a quadriplegic, can we abandon you in a downtown alley on a Sunday? Can you leave your grandmother with Alzheimers alone to fend for herself or will they come after you for neglect/abuse? Just because your not viable without life support doesn’t give anyone the right to end life or walk away from care just because your a wuss and don’t wish to be inconvenienced.

On a separate note what has feminism brought us besides ugly flight attendants?

[/quote]

This is the stupidest argument I’ve seen. When did “can” and “should” become the same thing?

429

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
I think we need a few more t-vixens in hear to see how they feel about someone telling them what they can and cant do with their bodies.[/quote]

Why’s that?[/quote]

Because you know we’re talking about women, but how about we get some people that were unborn babies, since that would be the subject of the argument. Oh, look I was one![/quote]

Oh and guess what. If you had been aborted for whatever reason, or became a miscarriage, you would not give a damn because you never would have existed. Again as I stated before you were dead, unborn, did not exist, or whatever other term you want to use, for a very long time before you were born. You did not seem to mind much then.

430

[quote]conservativedog wrote:

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]conservativedog wrote:
Here are two thoughts.

If some scum of the earth murders a pregnant woman guess what our American Justice System charges that scum of the earth with? If you said double homicide then you win the Weider Pro 400 Squat Cage capable of holding 210 lbs. plus 45 lb Olympic bar.

So how can this cockmite be charged with double homicide if what is inside the woman is not human life?

Secondly… if you have to kill it to keep it from growing then it must be LIFE. We go through different body stages but it’s all good. If I were the girl next door, 20 years old blond I would not sleep with Hugh Hefner. But he is still human life, even if he drools & wears depends.

HUMAN LIFE. It’s 2011 we have the technology to witness the miracle that happens inside a woman’s pregnant body. Pictures inside a woman’s belly shows the baby becoming large enough to be seen & at 8 weeks we see arms, legs and major joints forming. Toes and fingers are distinct. HUMAN LIFE it’s all good, even if Hugh Hefner wears depends.

Don’t buy into the lie that it’s not human. For the love of… what did you spill your seed in if it’s not human… http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/03/21/sc_man_who_had_sex_with_horse_released_from_prison/
[/quote]

You mean the same justice system that ruled on Roe vs. Wade and that has made abortion legal in this country? Somewhat of a contradiction. [/quote]

Yes, that is Precisely his point. Also, I completely agree with his point about life. We can debate all we want on whether a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a person. And we can debate all we want whether or not said zygote, embryo, or fetus is a form of life that deserves protection under the law. But please don’t be spouting off nonsense that it’s not human or not alive/“life”.

I think everybody here gets that already, and we’re just getting a little loose with the language in the heat of debate, but that little piece of ignorance drives me absolutely up a wall when I see it. There is zero scientific grounds for denying those two pieces of information.[/quote]

And when I hear people spouting off about how they feel they can limit the rights of others…well as you said, that little piece of ignorance drives me absolutely up a wall. I think we need a few more t-vixens in hear to see how they feel about someone telling them what they can and cant do with their bodies.[/quote]

Liberals are such one step thinkers. Don’t make this so easy. This lie that you can do with your body whatever you want does it include prostitution? No you can’t do that with your own body because laws govern against it.

How about having sex out in the middle of a mall with your own body. Hey it’s your body, nobody is going to tell you what you can do with your body will they? No. No.

Inject steroids into your own body without a doctors prescription? No you cant do that with your own body. How about giving yourself a heaping dose of heroin, crack or meth because after all it’s your body? No you can’t, even with your own body.

Drink alcohol at age 12 because you know you have anxiety and stress, and it’s your body. No NO, they don’t allow you to do that with your body.

Let’s sell your 1 month old baby girl to a stranger, after all it came out of your body and it’s yours?? Isn’t it?

No it isn’t and the sooner feminists grasp this concept they will grasp what they are doing in murdering a baby. It is a separate being growing inside your body. Just because it can’t fend for itself, feed itself doesn’t mean that isn’t the miracle of life. No different then in a freak accident you become a quadriplegic, can we abandon you in a downtown alley on a Sunday? Can you leave your grandmother with Alzheimers alone to fend for herself or will they come after you for neglect/abuse? Just because your not viable without life support doesn’t give anyone the right to end life or walk away from care just because your a wuss and don’t wish to be inconvenienced.

On a separate note what has feminism brought us besides ugly flight attendants?

[/quote]

You should try making this argument from your side of the fence buddy. Something like this…

Lets force you to have sex with someone you dont want to.

Lets force you to inject drugs in your body that you dont want in your body.

Lets force you to donate a nut to science just because we think its right to have more research done on male testicles.

Oh here is a good one. Lets force to go without lifting weights for the rest of your life. Why? Because people other than you think they have the right to dictate their beliefs onto you and your body.

431

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
snicker So are you a hypocrite when you determine someone’s future before they even have spent a day in this world? All while you can never determine your own? Oleena can help you build straw men btw. Obviously you need help to do just that.

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Chuckles

The whole Conservatives Vs Liberals inference/distinction point is kinda silly to say the least. Pretty redundant, really.

You don’t need to study much philosophy/politics to realize VIRTUALLY EVERYONE is a hypocrite.

To my mind, less abortions= More shitty parents= More fucked-up kids= A more fucked up future for pretty much everyone.

Seriously, what sane minded person doesn’t cringe at least a little bit when they find out some filthy little skank IS going have yet another baby, born into yet another crappy life situation??

Should we also try banning alcohol, just because SOME people might become alcoholics? [/quote]
[/quote]

For future reference, the whole point is to NOT have a strawman in an argument. BTW knee, How is that whole coming up with points I failed to address thing going? I noticed you failed to have any response to my last posts.

432

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Red herring. Start a new thread. [/quote]

It’s not a red herring. The “pro-life” argument wants to break it down so that life begins at conception, thereby placing a specific moment when cells become human, while belligerently screaming “YOU CAN’T DEFINE WHEN THEY BECOME HUMAN”. To take it back like you do means you can’t arbitrarily place your own markers for when becoming human happens.

You’re going to have to realize at some point a lot of the markers you rely on in this world are less clearly defined than you might like.

433

Makavali, thanks for being more concise than I manage.

434

[quote]Oleena wrote:
We’re getting really far off topic. My point was just a response to your argument that the court holds EVERYONE (you didn’t exclude any circumstances and made a blanket statement) to the same level of responsibility regardless of control, which it doesn’t.
[/quote]

Okay, because you insist. The Court does hold EVERYONE to the same level of responsibility (although I have a mind that it shouldn’t). However, their method of rehabilitation is just different. See, there you go.

435

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Not everyone has the same notion of personhood, so why pretend otherwise?
[/quote]

Because there is absolute truth.

Yes, vasectomies are immoral because artificially sterilize the person and make the sexual union corrupted by taking the open to life part out of it.

436

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Will you admit that under 4 weeks a developing fetus is not a person?[/quote]

No.

What is the difference between a 4 week old and 5 week old unborn?

I don’t argue potential, I actually don’t know what you mean by that. But that is another topic another thread probably.

437

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And did you really just say “t-vixen?” [/quote]

Yes I did just say T-vixen. You know…the women who are on this site. Like I said a few posts ago to knee, who oddly enough failed to respond, its real easy to sit on your side of the fence when the situation in question can not happen to you isnt it?[/quote]

Well…you know…statistically 50% of babies are male. So, statistically the male population has equal chance of dealing with being aborted before being born than the female population. Oh, yeah and I forgot half the baby is the fathers. So, if you’re going to argue the baby is “part” of the woman, then half of the child is “part” of the man.

438

[quote]ColumboSteel wrote:
Oh and guess what. If you had been aborted for whatever reason, or became a miscarriage, you would not give a damn because you never would have existed.[/quote]

Lol…that is a good joke. I actually spit out my sweet tea and bourbon while reading the last part of your statement.

So…in order for me to have been aborted, that of course means I would have to have been conceived. So sperm and egg would have to have met. Creating something with its own DNA genome, its own metabolism, and its own reaction to stimuli. So, obviously there would have to be something there for it to be aborted, something had to exist to have been aborted. So, are you really saying that I would have never existed if I was aborted…are you denying the existence of the embryo? Like we just image we’re aborting something, and really the embryo (or whatever you want to call it) that we aborted didn’t exist. Just fiction?

Please tell me this is not what you’re suggesting.

439

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Red herring. Start a new thread. [/quote]

It’s not a red herring. The “pro-life” argument wants to break it down so that life begins at conception, thereby placing a specific moment when cells become human, while belligerently screaming “YOU CAN’T DEFINE WHEN THEY BECOME HUMAN”. To take it back like you do means you can’t arbitrarily place your own markers for when becoming human happens.

You’re going to have to realize at some point a lot of the markers you rely on in this world are less clearly defined than you might like.[/quote]

Biological markers for a living thing (human in this case): metabolism, unique DNA genome, and reaction to stimuli. So, unless a human is morphed from something else, from conception it is a human life.

440

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:
Will you admit that under 4 weeks a developing fetus is not a person?[/quote]

No.

What is the difference between a 4 week old and 5 week old unborn?

I don’t argue potential, I actually don’t know what you mean by that. But that is another topic another thread probably.
[/quote]

I mean saying “It has the potential to become a person, and therefore is a person.”

The difference between the fourth and fifth week of pregnancy is nerve and organ development is completing during and after the fifth week. Arm and leg buds are also starting.

Before that point, it lacks the tissue definition that would even make it capable of being considered an animal.

You didn’t answer why you wouldn’t consider the a fetus under 4 weeks old to not be a person. My answer to your question is it’s degree of development. What’s your answer to the original question of why would would consider a 4 week old fetus a person?