Do you just copy-paste this response to anyone who makes arguments you don't actually know how to refute?
Also, how am I supposed to know which of my posts you are referring to?
How about this: Explain to me how person-hood is determined objectively, not arbitrarily. And don't just say "Because it is objective!" like endus and others are saying. If you can't do that its ok, I understand, because it is false to think that mankind can make up non-physical rules (such as the definition of person-hood) and then claim that such rules are based on empirical physical observations.
A mother doesn't have the right to kill her own child for simply 'being an inconvenience'.
“Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things...But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice.” - Francis A. Schaeffer
She's a piece of shit for doing this, but I don't blame her. I personally wouldn't pay a cent, since I am pro-choice. but to turn an abortion into give me money if you want the baby to live...is sickening.
You're now trying to argue that fingers are people. And you expect me to take your argument seriously.
You're the one who tried, and failed, to make an argument based on a deliberate misrepresentation of semantics. I simply pointed it out for the weak and inherently flawed argument that it was.
You tried to conflate two entirely separate meanings of the word "life".
Can a mother refuse to donate blood to her child?Originally Posted by spinner981
I agree this reflects my position too.
While I agree that body autonomy trumps the rights of a human baby in the making it is not that it has no rights on its own or no moral
sensitive areas.
It's as tasteful as for a pro choice person to damage the child with alcohol intoxication and then
asking for money or she wouldn't abort.
It's a non argument and it does not point out any hypocrisy whatsoever.
0
I have no vested interest in conception carrying to term or birth and subsequent raising of the child.
If she wants to have an abortion then she can go right on ahead.
Idiots fighting against a womans right to choose based on fictional, archaic, biblical verses, then argue that science arbitrarily defines human life... There are tax breaks for retards, you guys should look into it
Those who write off points for merely appearing ridiculous to them never make real strides in the area they claim to be having a discussion about, nor should anyone take them seriously in what they say concerning said area.
Of course, no I am not saying fingers are people. I am asking you why fingers aren't people, and you can't answer for the same reason why you can't objectively answer the question "Why are humans people?"
“Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things...But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice.” - Francis A. Schaeffer
I think she has found a VERY effective way to get her point across. This is a chance for the pro-life crowd to put their money where their mouth is, and since she will give the child up for abortion and put all the money in a fund for said child (a point which many in this thread seems to have missed, intentionally or otherwise), she's clearly not doing it for her own gain.
Brutal way to make her point, sure. But effective.
See, the thing is, I'm interesting in productive discussion. And this;
Is not productive discussion. It's just you pretending that words don't mean anything and that nothing is true or real. Particularly as I've already answered this ludicrous question, and you've simply refused to acknowledge that answer with the same nonsensical hand-waving that you're engaging in here.Of course, no I am not saying fingers are people. I am asking you why fingers aren't people, and you can't answer for the same reason why you can't objectively answer the question "Why are humans people?"
You aren't trying to discuss anything, you're simply denying evidence that contradicts your presumptions. That isn't an argument. You aren't the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
“Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things...But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice.” - Francis A. Schaeffer