"How much would you pay to stop an abortion?"

[zenkai]

By the use of the word "life" that applies to a fetus, the same definition applies to a finger, or a bacterium, or a spermatozoa.

.

Semantics is probably the weakest counter argument you can bring up to make your point, are you going to say "depends what your definition of is, is" next?

[spinner981]

You effectively argued nothing using way too many words... are you a lawyer?

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.

Why does it matter if the fetus is a human being or not? That's irrelevant. A child doesn't have the right to use the mother's body against her will.

A mother doesn't have the right to kill her own child for simply 'being an inconvenience'.

[RuneDK]

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.

[Endus]

You seem to be making this claim based on an assumption. "Fingers aren't people! That is ridiculous!" yet there is no non-arbitrary definition that makes an entire human a person without an individual finger also being considered a person.

You're now trying to argue that fingers are people. And you expect me to take your argument seriously.

Semantics is probably the weakest counter argument you can bring up to make your point, are you going to say "depends what your definition of is, is" next?

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".

[Hraklea]

A mother doesn't have the right to kill her own child for simply 'being an inconvenience'.

Can a mother refuse to donate blood to her child?

[Daymanmb]

Semantics is probably the weakest counter argument you can bring up to make your point, are you going to say "depends what your definition of is, is" next?

I think it was a joke... you people take life too seriously..

[Sickjen]

You're now trying to argue that fingers are people. And you expect me to take your argument seriously.

I'm so sigging this lol

[Deleted]

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.

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.

[Deleted]

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.

[Daymanmb]

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

[spinner981]

You're now trying to argue that fingers are people. And you expect me to take your argument seriously.

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?"

[Daymanmb]

Who are you talking to? I dont believe in God and im against abortion.

Republican... even worse.. when youre not as smart or as educated as someone else, start a party and yell the loudest.

[Halyon]

Once again. I simply have a problem with definitions that a select few humans get to decide on determining whether or not it is ok to kill someone.

It is basically the same thing as making up morality based on nothing but personal opinions.

That still doesn't change the fact that you don't have to like it for it to apply.

[Zecora]

Pregnant woman challenges pro-lifers to pay her $1 million in 72 hours or else she terminates her baby.


http://www.prolifeantiwoman.com/


Is this legal? As a pro-lifer I find this absolutely sickening that she would try to capitalise on her abortion to reduce her unborn baby's life to currency. Truly saddening.


What do you think?

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.

[Daymanmb]

Were you referring to me as a republican? Also false. Well I wasnt raised in the US so I probably dont have the same political definitions as you.

I like applying labels to idiots. It helps identify them in the future.

Infracted

[Endus]

Those who write off points for merely appearing ridiculous 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.

See, the thing is, I'm interesting in productive discussion. And this;

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?"

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.

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.

[spinner981]

That still doesn't change the fact that you don't have to like it for it to apply.

What point exactly are you trying to make then? I am not claiming that the law doesn't have the power to make it ok to kill children, I am saying that I believe it to be wrong.

[zenkai]

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".

I don't think you know what the word semantics is, on top of which the point I made early actually was very insightful to me to see how you thought and others had already said what needed to be said to your response I felt no need to parrot it.

[Daymanmb]

What point exactly are you trying to make then? I am not claiming that the law doesn't have the power to make it ok to kill children, I am saying that I believe it to be wrong.

And your belief is rooted in falsehoods. You choose to ignore facts because they make you uncomfortable.. grow up Peter Pan.. You try to counter facts with your opinion and force that opinion on others.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

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.

The money isn't for her. The baby will be put up for adoption and the money goes into a trust fund for the child when he/she turns 21.