Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ...
11
19
20
21
22
23
LastLast
  1. #401
    Titan MerinPally's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chemistry block.
    Posts
    13,372
    Ah yes the world famous medical practitioner Anthony Kennedy who... went to law school and actually has no clue about biology.

    Who would I believe, the people who went to medical school or those who are Roman Catholics, many of whom don't even like condoms and are staunchly anti abortion because mystical man in the sky said so...

    Hmm, I wonder who has a better idea...
    http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/characte...nicus/advanced
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Also a vegetable is a person.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    I dont care if they [gays] are allowed to donate [blood], but I think we should have an option to refuse gay blood if we need to receive blood.

  2. #402
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    We know black people suffer.
    killing people is wrong no matter its suffering.

    What's to refute? Your argument is absurdly stupid and offensive. Quite honestly, it may be the dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum and that's not for a lack of competition.
    Its not.
    I define people as people as inclusively as possible.
    isn't even close to being a person and isn't worthy of the rights that come with it.
    this is vague as fuck and everything can be declared non people under it.
    Please give me your Non semantic reason for why a foetus is not a human being?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by MerinPally View Post
    Ah yes the world famous medical practitioner Anthony Kennedy who... went to law school and actually has no clue about biology.

    Who would I believe, the people who went to medical school or those who are Roman Catholics, many of whom don't even like condoms and are staunchly anti abortion because mystical man in the sky said so...

    Hmm, I wonder who has a better idea...
    You are aware that he based his opinion on facts?.
    there are abortions were you cut the foetus into pieces to abort it.
    Also:
    Kennedy, who had co-authored the 5-4 Casey decision upholding Roe,
    So i think maybe you shouldn't diss the guy as some sort of clueless pro lifer, as you know, he didn't strike down Roe when he could, that kinda doesn't work then don't you agree?.
    Last edited by mmocfd561176b9; 2015-01-03 at 12:13 AM.

  3. #403
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Uh, you said it was more likely that someone would move society forward than harm it.
    which is true.
    99% of people are not sociopaths.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Explain in a way that compels others to agree with you.
    Killing people is wrong?
    it is the only moral absolute there is, well that and not lying.
    These things pre-date homo sapiens.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    You can do whatever the fuck you want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to care what you think or should care what you think.
    and how do you think i rate your opinion on anything i wonder?
    this was a void statement.
    Feel free to disagree but make an argument of some kind.

  4. #404
    Titan MerinPally's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chemistry block.
    Posts
    13,372
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    You are aware that he based his opinion on facts?.
    Says who?

    there are abortions were you cut the foetus into pieces to abort it.
    So? Problem? I don't care if they do it with one of these:



    So i think maybe you shouldn't diss the guy as some sort of clueless pro lifer, as you know, he didn't strike down Roe when he could, that kinda doesn't work then don't you agree?.
    A lot of things bleed, it doesn't necessarily have to be human or even alive to bleed so your little quote mine does little to back up "foetuses are people 2"
    http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/characte...nicus/advanced
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Also a vegetable is a person.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    I dont care if they [gays] are allowed to donate [blood], but I think we should have an option to refuse gay blood if we need to receive blood.

  5. #405
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    killing people is wrong no matter its suffering.


    Its not.
    I define people as people as inclusively as possible.

    this is vague as fuck and everything can be declared non people under it.
    Please give me your Non semantic reason for why a foetus is not a human being?

    - - - Updated - - -



    You are aware that he based his opinion on facts?.
    there are abortions were you cut the foetus into pieces to abort it.
    Also:

    So i think maybe you shouldn't diss the guy as some sort of clueless pro lifer, as you know, he didn't strike down Roe when he could, that kinda doesn't work then don't you agree?.
    The only time you perform an abortion by dismembering the fetus is because the situation is such that the safety of the mother can only be preserved by doing it that way. It's not something that is done for typical abortions.

    I don't care whether a fetus is a human life. What I care about is the right of bodily autonomy, as it is the most important of all rights.

  6. #406
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    holy nonsequiter batman.

    Again, the obsession with late term abortion is completely dishonest. Viability is never an issue in 99% of abortions, and even then those are usually life threatening pregnancies. You people can't get past autonomy when you want to ban abortion, so you ignore it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Please give me your Non semantic reason for why a foetus is not a human being?
    I assume you feel human life is special. Why is that?

  7. #407
    Scarab Lord Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    4,938
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Killing people is wrong?
    it is the only moral absolute there is, well that and not lying.
    These things pre-date homo sapiens.
    Killing people is not a moral absolute. It's condoned in times of war, and who you kill is allowed.

    What was considered moral 2000 years ago may not be today (Slavery), and 1000 years from now, people will look at some of the things we did today (Against gay marriage/For gay marriage depending on how times go), and wonder how we could be so fucking stupid. There maybe some absolutes, but killing people is most assuredly not one of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  8. #408
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    26,458
    Quote Originally Posted by pateuvasiliu View Post
    The only conclusion I draw from that is that her appendix was for some reason transplanted from someone else, because it has a different DNA from hers.
    It is possible to have different genetics in different parts of your body. It's a rare condition, but it does happen. Science!

    Or she could have actually had a transplant.

    But different DNA doesn't give your transplanted liver personhood or bodily rights.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    "That's my style; I like to kick 'em when they're down!"
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  9. #409
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    14,844
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    It is possible to have different genetics in different parts of your body. It's a rare condition, but it does happen. Science!
    There was some news article I read involving a woman who had that condition and I think it resulted in her kids not sharing her genetic information and it caused a huge snafu when DNA testing was relevant for some reason or another. Like, I remember reading how she brought proof that she had popped those kids out of her and the people were still disputing it because they didn't share her genetic information or something.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    I also do landscaping on weekends with some mexican kid that I "hired". He's real good because he's 100% obedient to me and does everything I say while never complaining. He knows that I am the man in the relationship and is completely submissive towards me as he should be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SUH View Post
    Crissi the goddess of MMO, if i may. ./bow

  10. #410
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by MerinPally View Post
    Says who?
    But none of this was the argument.
    You said he was wrong, and i pointed out that he wasn't.
    There are abortions procedures that are cutting the foetus into pieces and thereby killing them by dismemberment.
    and your characterisation of Kennedy as a right-wing nut job was laughably wrong.
    So? Problem? I don't care if they do it with one of these:
    Wasn't the fucking argument.
    A lot of things bleed, it doesn't necessarily have to be human or even alive to bleed so your little quote mine does little to back up "foetuses are people 2"
    Wasn't the fucking argument.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    The options aren't sociopath or you can't harm society.

    Most people do not harm society.
    this is a self evident statement by nature.
    Look at a fucking graph of well being to population.
    We have gotten much better as population increased since the last 10 000 years.
    Prove there is an absolute and that it predates Homo sapiens.
    it has to do with group cohesion, read later in this post for more details.
    It is not even a universally accepted moral within the species.
    to a degree it is, read again later in this post.
    Besides, even if I concede that killing people is always wrong, we're not talking about killing people. Please stay on topic.
    To me foetuses are people.
    There is nothing compelling in any argument as to why they should be non people.
    As yet i haven even gotten one that wasn't semantic, "Fish are fish so fish is fish"

    I don't care what you rate my opinion because you've made it abundantly clear you're not the slightest bit interested in reasoning or consistency
    I care about reasoning.
    I am utterly consistent.
    You are, too me, just entirely predicated on emotional responses here.
    Find something inconsistent in anything i have posted here, ever.
    Find anything with bad reasoning (do note however, that is not synonymous with "stuff i disagree with").

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    The only time you perform an abortion by dismembering the fetus is because the situation is such that the safety of the mother can only be preserved by doing it that way. It's not something that is done for typical abortions.
    Moot fucking point.
    This is absolutely nothing to do with the statement.
    Also, last i checked the ruling upheld the ban on the procedure, So even more Moot.

    I don't care whether a fetus is a human life. What I care about is the right of bodily autonomy, as it is the most important of all rights.
    No its not.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    holy nonsequiter batman.
    Its not.
    Even if wrong, its not.
    Do you know the meaning of the word?.
    Again, the obsession with late term abortion is completely dishonest.
    This has fucking nothing to do with this.
    Viability is never an issue in 99% of abortions,
    this could have something to do with the fact that 99% of times abortions are legally allowed to happen are prior to viability, so this is a deeply flawed statement.
    You people can't get past autonomy when you want to ban abortion, so you ignore it.
    I can get around it by this very simple statement, Foetuses are people.
    This supports my view:
    fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as defining a state's right to override the woman's autonomy
    as if the foetus was a person, then no fucking abortions.
    see foetal viability is code for meets the standard of person as per the 14th.
    can i dumb this down any more i wonder?.



    I assume you feel human life is special. Why is that?
    Because i am human.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    Killing people is not a moral absolute. It's condoned in times of war, and who you kill is allowed.
    Not your group.
    Killing anyone in YOUR clan is wrong.
    Also humans have strong inhibitors to use violence on people too, that is why dehumanising the enemy is the standard fare in war.
    http://northstarguide.wordpress.com/...gy-of-killing/

    Even in an environment with high dehumanization of the enemy like in WW2 that doesn’t mean the soldiers in question are conditioned to killing the enemy. After World War 2 Brigadier General S.L.A Marshall discovered that in the European theater of operations that individual riflemen only took shots against exposed enemy soldiers 15-20% of the time.
    There maybe some absolutes, but killing people is most assuredly not one of them.
    You are a lone person, and you want to survive.
    then you meet other people and you think of a few rules to guarantee your survival and be helpful, what are those rules invariably?
    They are, Not killing people (your fellow group members), as you want to survive, and not lying as if lying is condoned communication falls apart.
    These are well established facts.
    Last edited by mmocfd561176b9; 2015-01-03 at 02:10 PM.

  11. #411
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    You are, too me, just entirely predicated on emotional responses here.
    Oh wow, that is just pure comedy gold coming from you.

    Here's a very simple deduction of the whole argument:

    Mother (grown up human) + Bodily autonomy > Fetus (unborn, undeveloped, non-viable biomass with zero value)

    Or in this case:

    Mother (dead grown up woman) and her family's dignity > Fetus with zero chance of survival gestating in a corpse

    Or in case of a medical emergency (late-stage abortion):

    Mother's life (grown up human) > Fetus's life (unborn, but probably viable biomass with zero value)
    Last edited by nevermore; 2015-01-03 at 03:58 PM.

  12. #412
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by nevermore View Post
    Oh wow, that is just pure comedy gold coming from you.
    This will be good for me too i guess.

    Here's a very simple deduction of the whole argument:
    Mother (grown up human) + Bodily autonomy > Fetus (unborn, undeveloped, non-viable biomass with zero value)
    Okay, its not.
    to begin with, there is a series of arguments, so this is wrong.
    Now reduced to just this as you did its:
    Mother (grown up human) + Bodily autonomy ? Fetus (young human) + legal standing in a court
    which is painfully obvious if you read this:
    fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as defining a state's right to override the woman's autonomy
    the question is entirely whether or not the foetus has legal standing.
    so even further distilled it is:
    Mother < Fetus
    the entire fucking sticking point is, do the Foetus qualify for status as a person just like everybody else.
    bodily autonomy is inherently irrelevant.

    Or in this case:
    Mother (dead grown up woman) and her family's dignity > Fetus with zero chance of survival gestating in a corpse
    No its more like:
    Mother, opinions of which we need to care absolutely nothing about as she is dead, if cutting her into pieces and otherwise desecrating her body would help the foetus, you have to be disturbed not to do so. < Fetus
    Now to be fair, this case was not going to end well, so that meant there was no point.
    Or in case of a medical emergency (late-stage abortion):
    Mother's life (grown up human) > Fetus's life (unborn, but probably viable biomass with zero value)
    Should one person die or two persons die?
    that is a very difficult question.
    No wait its not, the exception in case of the mothers health is a fucking given.
    but i should rephrase it again.
    Mother's life > Fetus's and the mother
    Also:
    (unborn, but probably viable biomass with zero value)
    is reprehensible.
    even Nixx thinks the foetus has value (which was the person i was replying too) even if she is firmly on the mothers side.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by nevermore View Post
    In other countries the parents don't even give names to their kids until they reach a certain age because they can't even be bothered (that, and superstition).
    HA Ha ha.
    Lol this is pants on head wrong.
    Its to reduce to sense of loss incurred if they die.
    if your pet pig dies you are sad.
    if your pig dies you aren't sad.
    naming things changes the empathy we give it.
    it has nothing what-so-fucking-ever to do with being bothered.
    Not to mention if we really wanted to go into how many people actually do something to make the world a better place VS how many people are just useless resource-sucking leeches... I have a hunch which way the scales would tip.
    this is trivially stupid.

    human development has done what the last thousand years ?
    more humans are inherently good for that.
    you have a better argument that we will run out of space, but more people is inherently good.
    Last edited by mmocfd561176b9; 2015-01-03 at 04:40 PM.

  13. #413
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    26,458
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    So, yeah.
    That is shit they do sometimes.
    so he is actually right.
    Everything with blood dies by bleeding when it's torn apart. Are cows people? They die just like any adult human would.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    "That's my style; I like to kick 'em when they're down!"
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  14. #414
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    this is trivially stupid.
    http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/sja...ages/52.20.gif
    human development has done what the last thousand years ?
    more humans are inherently good for that.
    you have a better argument that we will run out of space, but more people is inherently good.
    WTF does the exponential human population growth have to do with humans being 'inherently good' ?

    Due to the advances of technology, medicine and agriculture we eat more and die less, therefore we are inherently good?

    human development has done what the last thousand years ?
    more humans are inherently good for that.
    This, especially the second line makes no sense at all.

    is reprehensible.
    even Nixx thinks the foetus has value (which was the person i was replying too) even if she is firmly on the mothers side.
    Right, so... what exactly is that value newborns (and unborn fetuses) hold?
    Try to answer this question without appealing to emotion or invoking religious talking points.

    Because a grown-up woman, especially if she lives in a developed country, has had a large amount of resources thrown at hear from the day she was born. She's gone through 12+ years of education and is a fully functional adult. She's most likely a contributing and productive member of society either through work or as a homekeeper. She's been collecting and assessing information in her brain for decades. She's biologically fully developed and is able to procreate.

    What does a newborn have/do?

  15. #415
    What it boils down to, since GoblinPaladin seems intent on avoiding this point, is that the only thing special about humans is our mind. When that isn't present we're nothing more than sacks of meat. A fetus or a vegetable is still a human, but its asinine to call it a person.

  16. #416
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Is-ought problem.
    Nope.
    Human disinclination to kill each other and the universal rule against killing people (of your own society) are observable fucking reality.
    Have you ever taken a polysci class or pretty much any biology with any evolution in it?.
    Just because there are ingrained tools to encourage group cohesion doesn't mean that is moral.
    That is the definition.
    concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong
    society frowns upon killing people.
    but just because that is the case doesn't mean it ought to be.
    as i said, its a moot point, It is observable reality.
    you may freely argue for your other society that since by virtue of letting people kill each other is sure to be a festive and nice place, are you in Syria by any chance?.
    No, there is no "to a degree" here. It's either universal or it isn't.
    Problem is, Species = is not society.
    hopefully you understand the difference.
    Nobody cares about your personal opinion.
    stop it with this, its not a personal oppinion, (its only shared with a majority of people), and more importantly, its not an argument.
    Your entire argument, which is essentially "human DNA, therefore human" is abysmal and would prevent anyone from removing a cancerous tumor as well.
    No.
    You are your cancer.
    You are not your foetus.
    the foetus is not in any way shape or form a part of the mother, do i need to start in on this again?.
    Furthermore, if you're going to use this argument, you need to present a compelling case as to why only humans are worthy of such protection, since it's apparently something special about the genetic structure of human DNA.
    for the same reason we can eat and kill other animals.
    We are human, ergo, we care about humans.
    Ever? Go reread any post you have ever made. Your reasoning is awful and your definition of what a person is doesn't work in the slightest. You seem to be personally incapable of recognizing good reasoning though, which is both why your reasoning sucks and why you think it doesn't.
    and you have as of yet supplied nothing but nonsense and a bad argument debunked 15 times.

  17. #417
    Human disinclination to kill each other and the universal rule against killing people (of your own society) are observable fucking reality.

    society frowns upon killing people.
    Society frowns upon killing people yet it makes special distinctions when it's OK to kill someone.
    War (sending your 'own' to die and to kill others), death penalty, etc.
    People can easily turn against their own, they just have to paint them as 'others' first. It's a logical hoop that we jump through in order to make ourselves feel better.

    the foetus is not in any way shape or form a part of the mother
    I think at this point it's obvious that you can not be convinced by reason.
    Did your eyes twitch when you typed this sentence, cause it's so blatantly wrong?

  18. #418
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by nevermore View Post
    WTF does the exponential human population growth have to do with humans being 'inherently good' ?
    For progress.
    Three reasons.
    One more geniuses.
    Two, more combined brain power.
    Three, Greater critical mass, you need a society of 5000 people to support a school system, 10 000 to support a hospital and a 100 000 million to support a space programme.
    Due to the advances of technology, medicine and agriculture we eat more and die less, therefore we are inherently good?
    this is nonsense.
    This, especially the second line makes no sense at all.
    this argument is predicated on the notion that homo sapiens has been in development for about 2.5 million years.
    as you saw of the graph, most of this time population was very steady.
    technological advancement was near zero.
    as population increased technological advancement was not near zero.
    its not a perfect argument to be sure, as correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it should be obvious what was meant at least.

    Right, so... what exactly is that value newborns (and unborn fetuses) hold?
    Non zero.
    Try to answer this question without appealing to emotion or invoking religious talking points.
    Don't have to.
    Non zero.
    You said Zero, i say Non zero.

    Because a grown-up woman, especially if she lives in a developed country, has had a large amount of resources thrown at hear from the day she was born. She's gone through 12+ years of education and is a fully functional adult. She's most likely a contributing and productive member of society either through work or as a homekeeper. She's been collecting and assessing information in her brain for decades. She's biologically fully developed and is able to procreate.

    What does a newborn have/do?
    Societal value of a person is not contingent on its societal output.
    simple analogy, is a person with downs syndrome less valuable than another person?.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Wait, I what?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    A corpse is always nobody.
    I mean, I'm all for legalizing competitive sport abortion, or asportion for short, but squeamishness and respect for a person that no longer exists is not a great reason.
    did i misunderstand that?.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by nevermore View Post
    Society frowns upon killing people yet it makes special distinctions when it's OK to kill someone.
    Yes.
    War (sending your 'own' to die and to kill others), death penalty, etc.
    death penalty is the punishment for what crime again? im hazy on that detail. (also i am not a supporter of the death penalty).
    Also war involve dehumanising the enemy.
    Abortions involve dehumanising the foetus.
    Is there a comparison here?.

    People can easily turn against their own, they just have to paint them as 'others' first. It's a logical hoop that we jump through in order to make ourselves feel better.
    Yes, my point exactly mister "zero worth", ever heard the phrase parasite?.


    I think at this point it's obvious that you can not be convinced by reason.
    You mean a slogan relating to no medical reality whatsoever?.
    parroting a slogan sure beats medical facts.
    Did your eyes twitch when you typed this sentence, cause it's so blatantly wrong?
    it twitches when i read that particular piece of nonsense from someone.
    it has no relation to reality whatsoever.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    What it boils down to, since GoblinPaladin seems intent on avoiding this point, is that the only thing special about humans is our mind. When that isn't present we're nothing more than sacks of meat. A fetus or a vegetable is still a human, but its asinine to call it a person.
    a foetus is not comparable to a vegetable.
    Also a vegetable is a person, if not the word you are looking for is brain dead.
    A foetus is not, nor can they be compared too, brain dead people.
    but im glad to see you have stopped to argue about bodily autonomy.

  19. #419
    Deleted

    G

    Quote Originally Posted by pateuvasiliu View Post
    A toe isn't an organism.



    Don't fucking strawman me.

    I said the analogy is bad because the fetus is the result of the woman's actions. It's not something that happened while she was doing nothing unless her name's Mary.
    What is the relevance of this fact?Just because the mother gave life to the fetus ,she is not obligated to continue the existence of the fetus.

  20. #420
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    68,696
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    a foetus is not comparable to a vegetable.
    Also a vegetable is a person, if not the word you are looking for is brain dead.
    A foetus is not, nor can they be compared too, brain dead people.
    Prior to about Week 21, they fit the same terms we use to define people as brain-dead. So no. You're just wrong on the facts, again. Unless the fetus' brain is managing its own breathing and circulation (and it is not), it is effectively brain-dead. It has not become a person, yet.

    This isn't a difficult concept, and you keep avoiding it. At what point, to you, does a developing human embryo/fetus become a person? There has to be a point where this event occurs. If you're going to claim it's at conception, then I'm going to point out that you're talking about something that is not only brain-dead, but which has no brain at all, because it's a single undistinguished cell. If you're not setting that point at conception, you need actual, objectively determinative reasons to declare that it has entered personhood. Reasons that aren't just based on feelings. Which is basically all you've provided thus far.

    but im glad to see you have stopped to argue about bodily autonomy.
    Bodily autonomy is still the trump card in play. We're just humoring you on the personhood thing.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •