[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, up humans don’t come from storks and zygotes don’t continue to develop into infants, teens, adults and elderly by way of magic fairy dust.
Therefore they are people, and alive.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. You are trying to explain from a biological perspective why it’s a human rather than explain why we should consider it as such regardless of what science may or may not say.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]
If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.
Anyone breathing has a chance at A life.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]
Well the pro-murder camp shouldn’t have any problem with just tossing an infant in a pile and saying “well you would have had a hard life anyway, so see ya, I’m off to starbucks!”
Or does seeing the baby and hearing it cry make the sound of a vacuum too unbearable?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, up humans don’t come from storks and zygotes don’t continue to develop into infants, teens, adults and elderly by way of magic fairy dust.
Therefore they are people, and alive.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. You are trying to explain from a biological perspective why it’s a human rather than explain why we should consider it as such regardless of what science may or may not say. [/quote]
Because if left alone, the majority of the time, a tiny boy or girl will be born in 9 months.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]
If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.
Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, up humans don’t come from storks and zygotes don’t continue to develop into infants, teens, adults and elderly by way of magic fairy dust.
Therefore they are people, and alive.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. You are trying to explain from a biological perspective why it’s a human rather than explain why we should consider it as such regardless of what science may or may not say. [/quote]
Because if left alone, the majority of the time, a tiny boy or girl will be born in 9 months. [/quote]
Technically, he or she cannot be left alone.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, up humans don’t come from storks and zygotes don’t continue to develop into infants, teens, adults and elderly by way of magic fairy dust.
Therefore they are people, and alive.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. You are trying to explain from a biological perspective why it’s a human rather than explain why we should consider it as such regardless of what science may or may not say. [/quote]
lol, really?
So your question is “why should we consider this undeveloped human a human?”
Really?
How about because it is human.
Lets see. We know it is human, we know it is alive… We know what is going to happen if NATURE doesn’t interfere… So… I’m not sure where the confusion lies here.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to?[/quote]
Well maybe they should have thought about this before they had sex?
I don’t know, just maybe.
lol @ choose not to? Yes there are horrid people out there, look at the way some people in this thread view human life (ie: when they find it convenient).
But all the bad parents, all the poverty, all the tough situations… The child still has the chance, still has its life to do with it as it pleases.
lol yes, life is hard. So lets kill some babies.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]
If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.
Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them? [/quote]
What exactly do you expect me to say,“Ya their life might suck cause moms a crack head, just suck em out of her womb…”
They will still have a shot at a life. Yes it will be hard, but people have overcome shitty situations and had not only great, but amazing and influential lives.
If the parents can’t then we (society) can pick up the slack. If the parents won’t garnish every single penny they will ever earn to pay for said kids for all I care. zit is their RESPONSIBILITY, a word fading away at an alarming rate.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]
If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.
Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them? [/quote]
What exactly do you expect me to say,“Ya their life might suck cause moms a crack head, just suck em out of her womb…”
They will still have a shot at a life. Yes it will be hard, but people have overcome shitty situations and had not only great, but amazing and influential lives.
If the parents can’t then we (society) can pick up the slack. If the parents won’t garnish every single penny they will ever earn to pay for said kids for all I care. zit is their RESPONSIBILITY, a word fading away at an alarming rate. [/quote]
The general vibe I get from PWI is that people are tired of picking up the slack of others. So yes we can pick up the slack but only to a certain point, then what?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]
If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.
Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them? [/quote]
What exactly do you expect me to say,“Ya their life might suck cause moms a crack head, just suck em out of her womb…”
They will still have a shot at a life. Yes it will be hard, but people have overcome shitty situations and had not only great, but amazing and influential lives.
If the parents can’t then we (society) can pick up the slack. If the parents won’t garnish every single penny they will ever earn to pay for said kids for all I care. zit is their RESPONSIBILITY, a word fading away at an alarming rate. [/quote]
The general vibe I get from PWI is that people are tired of picking up the slack of others. So yes we can pick up the slack but only to a certain point, then what?[/quote]
I personally am tired of picking up the slack for lazy 30 year olds living off welfare because a job at McDonalds is “beneath” them. I would rather that money go to under privileged kids. Ideally through charity, but I’ll take via the gov.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
If human mother = mother hen, and
If human baby = baby chick, then
Unborn baby = unhatched chick, and
Zygote = newly fertilized egg, and
Unfertilized ovum = unfertilized egg.
I seem to recall an old saying to the effect of “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched,” but that probably doesn’t apply here.
[/quote]
If the egg is not fertilized then it is not a Zygote, and the egg will never grow inside of the woman.
[/quote]
Yes, I know. Please see bolded line above. [/quote]
I was emphasizing that what you said applied here.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]
If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.
Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them? [/quote]
What exactly do you expect me to say,“Ya their life might suck cause moms a crack head, just suck em out of her womb…”
They will still have a shot at a life. Yes it will be hard, but people have overcome shitty situations and had not only great, but amazing and influential lives.
If the parents can’t then we (society) can pick up the slack. If the parents won’t garnish every single penny they will ever earn to pay for said kids for all I care. zit is their RESPONSIBILITY, a word fading away at an alarming rate. [/quote]
The general vibe I get from PWI is that people are tired of picking up the slack of others. So yes we can pick up the slack but only to a certain point, then what?[/quote]
We are willing to “pick up the slack” of people that are actually in need. We want more accountability. We are tired of throwing money at an issue and the issue getting even worse.
I believe if we got rid of all welfare we might see the truly needy getting help from people. The others would see their moral fortitude actually increase. Also this would all take place in a period of 5 years. Short term pain for long term gain.
My giving to charities would increase two fold if I did not have to pay so much in taxes.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
My giving to charities would increase two fold if I did not have to pay so much in taxes.
[/quote]
Yup
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Chance at life or chance at A life. Can we simply toss newborns on a pile and say, “hey, you had a chance at life,” or do we have some obligation to provide more than that? [/quote]
If you create that newborn you have an obligation to that newborn.
Anyone breathing has a chance at A life. [/quote]
What if the parent(s) can’t or choose not to? What they will just be sucky parents and the kid is better off, safer even, without them? [/quote]
What exactly do you expect me to say,“Ya their life might suck cause moms a crack head, just suck em out of her womb…”
They will still have a shot at a life. Yes it will be hard, but people have overcome shitty situations and had not only great, but amazing and influential lives.
If the parents can’t then we (society) can pick up the slack. If the parents won’t garnish every single penny they will ever earn to pay for said kids for all I care. zit is their RESPONSIBILITY, a word fading away at an alarming rate. [/quote]
The general vibe I get from PWI is that people are tired of picking up the slack of others. So yes we can pick up the slack but only to a certain point, then what?[/quote]
We are willing to “pick up the slack” of people that are actually in need. We want more accountability. We are tired of throwing money at an issue and the issue getting even worse.
I believe if we got rid of all welfare we might see the truly needy getting help from people. The others would see their moral fortitude actually increase. Also this would all take place in a period of 5 years. Short term pain for long term gain.
My giving to charities would increase two fold if I did not have to pay so much in taxes.
[/quote]
Love it! I need this linked to the discussion in “Why do we even work?” thread haha.
Short erm pain for long term gain can be said for A LOT of things, sadly, no one in a position to do so is willing to pull that trigger.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Short erm pain for long term gain can be said for A LOT of things, sadly, no one in a position to do so is willing to pull that trigger.[/quote]
Because they need to make sure they get re-elected.
I’ve said on here before, I being in my late 20s, am willing to pay for, but not receive social security. We don’t need government retirement plans, but I understand there are many folks older than I that have save exaclty $0 because of social security.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve said on here before, I being in my late 20s, am willing to pay for, but not receive social security. We don’t need government retirement plans, but I understand there are many folks older than I that have save exaclty $0 because of social security. [/quote]
And they will find out how good Alpo tastes. They need to buy the book, “How to prepare Alpo 100 ways, and LIKE IT!!!”
Soc Sec was never intended to live 100% off of. It was only to replace 30-35% of your retirement income.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve said on here before, I being in my late 20s, am willing to pay for, but not receive social security. We don’t need government retirement plans, but I understand there are many folks older than I that have save exaclty $0 because of social security. [/quote]
And they will find out how good Alpo tastes. They need to buy the book, “How to prepare Alpo 100 ways, and LIKE IT!!!”
Soc Sec was never intended to live 100% off of. It was only to replace 30-35% of your retirement income.
[/quote]
I’m with you. I don’t include Social Security in my retirement projections or planning.
It’ll be like a “bonus” if it still exists in 40 years.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve said on here before, I being in my late 20s, am willing to pay for, but not receive social security. We don’t need government retirement plans, but I understand there are many folks older than I that have save exaclty $0 because of social security. [/quote]
And they will find out how good Alpo tastes. They need to buy the book, “How to prepare Alpo 100 ways, and LIKE IT!!!”
Soc Sec was never intended to live 100% off of. It was only to replace 30-35% of your retirement income.
[/quote]
I’m with you. I don’t include Social Security in my retirement projections or planning.
It’ll be like a “bonus” if it still exists in 40 years. [/quote]
It is my Pizza Money when I retire. I do not understand why people want to live that way. I am saving and investing, saving and investing. When I am older I am going to live off the earnings and do stuff that people will envy. I might even pay for a trip for my buddies that are on Soc Sec.