I meant the odds of someone being a genius that helps humanity are higher than the odds of someone being the new Hitler.
I meant the odds of someone being a genius that helps humanity are higher than the odds of someone being the new Hitler.
You only have to compare the number of people that die to wars and the number of people that die to diseases.
In the last century alone 400 million died to Smallpox, more than the 2 World Wars combined and then doubled.
Hell you could probably add all the known wars in the last 300 years and you probably wouldn't get 400 million people dead.
Now those 400 million people are people that didn't get vaccines.
But billions did. And they didn't die from smallpox. That vaccine alone saved more people than all the wars in the last 1000 years killed.
Last edited by pateuvasiliu; 2015-01-02 at 07:51 PM.
Kennedy: "The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn from limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off."
So, yeah.
That is shit they do sometimes.
so he is actually right.
- - - Updated - - -
That decision was modified by the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the "central holding" in Roe, but replacing the trimester system with the point of fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as defining a state's right to override the woman's autonomy.
So, not a red herring.
its in fact the central thing.
In fact as i have said a few times, if the foetus were a person as per the 14th, Then Bye Bye abortions.
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...
killing people is wrong no matter its suffering.
Its not.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.
I define people as people as inclusively as possible.
this is vague as fuck and everything can be declared non people under it.isn't even close to being a person and isn't worthy of the rights that come with 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?.Kennedy, who had co-authored the 5-4 Casey decision upholding Roe,
Last edited by mmocfd561176b9; 2015-01-03 at 12:13 AM.
which is true.
99% of people are not sociopaths.
- - - Updated - - -
Killing people is wrong?
it is the only moral absolute there is, well that and not lying.
These things pre-date homo sapiens.
- - - Updated - - -
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.
Says who?
So? Problem? I don't care if they do it with one of these:there are abortions were you cut the foetus into pieces to abort it.
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"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.
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 - - -
I assume you feel human life is special. Why is that?
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.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
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.
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.
Wasn't the fucking argument.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"
- - - Updated - - -
it has to do with group cohesion, read later in this post for more details.Prove there is an absolute and that it predates Homo sapiens.
to a degree it is, read again later in this post.It is not even a universally accepted moral within the species.
To me foetuses are people.Besides, even if I concede that killing people is always wrong, we're not talking about killing people. Please stay on topic.
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 care about reasoning.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 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 - - -
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.
No its not.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.
- - - Updated - - -
Its not.
Even if wrong, its not.
Do you know the meaning of the word?.
This has fucking nothing to do with this.Again, the obsession with late term abortion is completely dishonest.
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.Viability is never an issue in 99% of abortions,
I can get around it by this very simple statement, Foetuses are people.You people can't get past autonomy when you want to ban abortion, so you ignore it.
This supports my view:
as if the foetus was a person, then no fucking abortions.fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as defining a state's right to override the woman's autonomy
see foetal viability is code for meets the standard of person as per the 14th.
can i dumb this down any more i wonder?.
Because i am human.I assume you feel human life is special. Why is that?
- - - Updated - - -
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.You are a lone person, and you want to survive.There maybe some absolutes, but killing people is most assuredly not one of them.
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.
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.
This will be good for me too i guess.
Okay, its not.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)
to begin with, there is a series of arguments, so this is wrong.
Now reduced to just this as you did its:
which is painfully obvious if you read this:Mother (grown up human) + Bodily autonomy ? Fetus (young human) + legal standing in a court
the question is entirely whether or not the foetus has legal standing.fetal viability (whenever it may occur) as defining a state's right to override the woman's autonomy
so even further distilled it is:
the entire fucking sticking point is, do the Foetus qualify for status as a person just like everybody else.Mother < Fetus
bodily autonomy is inherently irrelevant.
No its more like:Or in this case:
Mother (dead grown up woman) and her family's dignity > Fetus with zero chance of survival gestating in a corpse
Now to be fair, this case was not going to end well, so that meant there was no point.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
Should one person die or two persons die?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)
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.
Also:Mother's life > Fetus's and the mother
is reprehensible.(unborn, but probably viable biomass with zero value)
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 - - -
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.
this is trivially stupid.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.
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.
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?
This, especially the second line makes no sense at all.human development has done what the last thousand years ?
more humans are inherently good for that.
Right, so... what exactly is that value newborns (and unborn fetuses) hold?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.
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?
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.