gcthomas
New member
Because it has no body parts. I find having body parts quite important in my life.
"Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
Because it has no body parts. I find having body parts quite important in my life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
One on one Aaaaron. You can tell us how you're "pro life" and then I'll show that you're not doing a damn thing to defeat the movement that is behind abortion; in fact I'll show how you're promoting it with your Libertarian mentality.
My point has been made. You being a Libertarian (specifically, a homosexualist) somehow think that you can defeat the abortion movement while allowing other sexual sins (and the movements behind them) to prosper.
Show me how that's done.
Play nice Aaaaron, when I referred to you as a bisexual (the "B" in the LGBT acronym), you reported me and I was banned for it.
I'll let this one slide.
Well then, Hutch must be against saving innocent human lives as well (he's not, Aaaaaron just likes using out of context videos to try and blow smoke against my argument).
One on one Aaaaaron. Create the thread, I'll be there.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
One on one Aaaaron. You can tell us how you're "pro life" and then I'll show that you're not doing a damn thing to defeat the movement that is behind abortion; in fact I'll show how you're promoting it with your Libertarian mentality.
My point has been made. You being a Libertarian (specifically, a homosexualist) somehow think that you can defeat the abortion movement while allowing other sexual sins (and the movements behind them) to prosper.
Show me how that's done.
Play nice Aaaaron, when I referred to you as a bisexual (the "B" in the LGBT acronym), you reported me and I was banned for it.
I'll let this one slide.
Well then, Hutch must be against saving innocent human lives as well (he's not, Aaaaaron just likes using out of context videos to try and blow smoke against my argument).
One on one Aaaaaron. Create the thread, I'll be there.
mighty_duck
New member
Your quasi-argument is that the simplest way to describe the people we care about is as group X (ie the group of human organisms), therefore we must give rights to all who belong to group X.
This is a linguistic argument, trying to use the way we describe something as a key point, rather than asking what we actually care about and why.
I'm not accusing you of intentional trickery - I'm not sure you can even see your own argument's hump.
No working cerebral cortex - no person. Not yet anyway. It is under construction.
This is an attempt at emotional ploy, based on a linguistic trick - when we say "human" we usually mean "person".
The "innocent" tag is yet another emotional ploy. The guilt or innocence of the fetus are not an issue, if that term even makes sense for a being with no human intent.
Try it again without all the sleight of hand. "All human organisms, including zygotes, should be protected by law"
Once your assertion is laid out plainly, it is very difficult to accept. You know this is true, which is why we see all of the obfuscation.
You could try to make a compelling argument. I don't think you have.
If my objection still isn't clear after this post, let me know.
BTW, no one is denying those facts - it is alive, and it is a human organism.
WizardofOz
New member
AlaCarte trolling
AlaCarte trolling
Show me how that's done.
lain:
It was not out of context. I linked an entire interview in which Hutch discusses homosexuality and his stance on it. I anonymously quoted the most pertinent statements he made. You labeled his own words "libertarian doctrine".
This is your own (kinda/former) pastor! You're out of touch with your own spiritual leader. What does (should) that tell you?
How about whether Pastor Ken Hutcherson is a homosexualist by your very own made up definition of the made up word. :chuckle:
I win
AlaCarte trolling
You have yet to provide one shred of evidence backing your numerous declarations against me.
Show me how that's done.
Report me. I care
lain::doh:
It was not out of context. I linked an entire interview in which Hutch discusses homosexuality and his stance on it. I anonymously quoted the most pertinent statements he made. You labeled his own words "libertarian doctrine".
This is your own (kinda/former) pastor! You're out of touch with your own spiritual leader. What does (should) that tell you?
How about whether Pastor Ken Hutcherson is a homosexualist by your very own made up definition of the made up word. :chuckle:
I win
alwight
New member
And so it is sometimes, which is rather the central point about having the freedom to choose each time.
However I would certainly still argue that adoption isn’t always the best answer and that women should not be compelled to be pregnant if they didn’t want to be.
My MS Word dictionary description of primate:
“a member of an order of mammals with a large brain and complex hands and feet, including humans, apes, and monkeys.”
Clearly no then by that anyway since a zygote has no brain at all never mind hands and feet. What say you?
Again you fudge it perhaps, but nevertheless I still disagree, “a human” can be and sometimes is used as an alternative to “a person” as a noun, even if you might be rather more correct in usage without the definite article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
My point has been made. You being a Libertarian (specifically, a homosexualist) somehow think that you can defeat the abortion movement while allowing other sexual sins (and the movements behind them) to prosper.
While I know you would love for this "debate" to be about you, in reality it's about 55 million dead babies and how we're going to stop 55 million more from being murdered in the womb.
Again, how do you propose that be done without dealing with other sexual sins as well?
Quote:
Play nice Aaaaron, when I referred to you as a bisexual (the "B" in the LGBT acronym), you reported me and I was banned for it.
I'll let this one slide.
How can I mock you Aaaaaron if you're banned?
Quote:
Well then, Hutch must be against saving innocent human lives as well (he's not, Aaaaaron just likes using out of context videos to try and blow smoke against my argument)
Aaaaaron is just OBSESSED with a big rugged ex professional football player (a black one at that).
Again, this "debate" isn't about a man who was behind a WA State initiative that was going to prohibit same sex marriage, and most likely during an interview the lamestream media reporter asked him an off the wall question that had absolutely nothing to do with the interview,
http://www.store-worldministries.or...en-pidgeon-candidate-for-wa-state-attor-.html
it's about babies being murdered in the womb and what we're going to to about it.
One on one Aaaaaron, you start the thread, I'll be there.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
My point has been made. You being a Libertarian (specifically, a homosexualist) somehow think that you can defeat the abortion movement while allowing other sexual sins (and the movements behind them) to prosper.
While I know you would love for this "debate" to be about you, in reality it's about 55 million dead babies and how we're going to stop 55 million more from being murdered in the womb.
Again, how do you propose that be done without dealing with other sexual sins as well?
Quote:
Play nice Aaaaron, when I referred to you as a bisexual (the "B" in the LGBT acronym), you reported me and I was banned for it.
I'll let this one slide.
How can I mock you Aaaaaron if you're banned?
Quote:
Well then, Hutch must be against saving innocent human lives as well (he's not, Aaaaaron just likes using out of context videos to try and blow smoke against my argument)
Aaaaaron is just OBSESSED with a big rugged ex professional football player (a black one at that).
Again, this "debate" isn't about a man who was behind a WA State initiative that was going to prohibit same sex marriage, and most likely during an interview the lamestream media reporter asked him an off the wall question that had absolutely nothing to do with the interview,
http://www.store-worldministries.or...en-pidgeon-candidate-for-wa-state-attor-.html
it's about babies being murdered in the womb and what we're going to to about it.
One on one Aaaaaron, you start the thread, I'll be there.
WizardofOz
New member
I am trying to establish the most basic point of agreement I can with the opposing camp. And what have I gotten? You're the first one who even seems capable of conceding that a human zygote is indeed a human.
It shouldn't be that difficult, because.....it is scientifically and etymologically human and a human. Why has getting the point to sink in been akin to pulling teeth?
Now I am accused of trickery or presenting "quasi-arguments". It isn't a quasi-argument, it is just a very simple one. It certainly does not require anyone on either side to agree on the philosophy behind the science. Your side cannot stop itself from presenting philosophical arguments.
These arguments never have and never will solve anything. Why should anyone care whether person Y considers zygote X to be a "person". It's arbitrary dribble. Why should anyone care whether person Y considers 30-week-old fetus to be a person? The judgement is not any less arbitrary.
What have I argued? That all innocent human life should be given legal protection. All humans should be given due process in order to be protected from being indiscriminately killed.
Your philosophy on "personhood" is noted. However, the human that does not yet have a working cerebral cortex is indeed human and is indeed a human and therefore should not be indiscriminately killed. All humans should be protected by law.
Kind of like when a drunk driver kills a fetus and gets fully charged as if that human was born.
You're way off base. I say "innocent" because I am not making any statements about the death penalty and killing not innocent humans.
No emotional ploy. If you question my motive, simply ask for clarification. :e4e:
And sorry, "human" and "person" cannot just be used interchangeably. The linguistic error is on behalf of anyone who asserts they can be or uses them as such. Whether an organism is human can be biologically proven. Whether an organism is a "person" can never, and I mean never, be proven. The judgement is purely philosophical and thus, arbitrary.
I absolutely agree with the statement. Your point? I think I may have even made a quote similar to that earlier. No gotcha moment here, no large font necessary.
I'm not sure what you're asking for exactly. I have shown that a human zygote is both human (adjective) and a human (noun). I find it fascinating that the pro-choicers who have decided to participate cannot accept this most simple and fundamental truth.
You try, if a human zygote is not fully human, what is it? It is partially human? If so, it is partially human and partially what else? Complete the zygote pie chart.
If you have no objection and agree that a human zygote is human and a human then perhaps we can proceed. Because, if you check the thread, you'd be the first pro-choicer in the thread to agree with my very simple factual and biological statement.
WizardofOz
New member
And so it is sometimes, which is rather the central point about having the freedom to choose each time.
Yet the other human directly involved and directly impacted by the decision is not given the freedom nor an opportunity to consent.
That's not liberty.
Consenting to engage sex is implied consent to getting pregnant. It's reasonable to predict this outcome from the act of intercourse. I know you won't agree so I'll move on to my second point.
In adoption, there are basically 3 parties involved; the child, the birth mother, and the adoptive parents. Adoption is the "best answer" for 2 of the 3 parties involved. Agreed?
See what I mean, might duck? Alwight isn't prepared to concede that a human zygote is a human. It's because he too mistakingly thinks that human=person and that they can be used interchangeably.
WizardofOz
New member
:blabla: stop trolling the thread :loser:
I'm sure you need to look up some more pics of gays in action on the net.
Or perhaps you have a parade to attend. :flamer:
If you have something intelligent to offer on the topic of the thread....but, who am I kidding? You came to stalk me and troll my thread.
What's wrong, not getting enough attention?
Yet another pro life fraud exposed.
Keep patting yourself on the back while innocent babies die in droves.
God's watching.
WizardofOz
New member
4-5 posts now...:idea: provide an argument or go away
alwight
New member
At best imo the “other” is a potential human/person albeit of human origin of which there is potentially a limitless supply of.Yet the other human directly involved and directly impacted by the decision is not given the freedom nor an opportunity to consent.And so it is sometimes, which is rather the central point about having the freedom to choose each time.
That's not liberty.
It would be rather nice if actual arriving new human persons were all wanted and looked forward to as they gestated and beyond.
Having consensual sex is no evil crime nor something for regular partners to treat with overdue reverence and responsibility. An unwanted pregnancy is a possibility even if you are careful; it’s not like Russian roulette, so if the unwanted does happen then why not put things back as you had planned it, why must there be any unwanted consequences?
I’m all for the choices that other people freely make for themselves and for their own lives. A woman imo should have the right of choice to be pregnant or not and in what will happen to her body over nine months and beyond.
I don’t think I’m mistaken. :nono:
Again:
My point has been made. You being a Libertarian (specifically, a homosexualist) somehow think that you can defeat the abortion movement while allowing other sexual sins (and the movements behind them) to prosper.
One on one, anytime you're ready.
alwight
New member
Then your God watches as far more human conceptions (zygotes) are flushed down the toilet unnoticed and un-regarded.
Perhaps your God is too busy watching what people do in bed together or indeed perhaps if they do it alone? :think:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet another pro life fraud exposed.
Keep patting yourself on the back while innocent babies die in droves.
God's watching.
You and Aaaaaron have so much in common Uncle alwight:
Neither of you have the slightest clue about God.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet another pro life fraud exposed.
Keep patting yourself on the back while innocent babies die in droves.
God's watching.
You and Aaaaaron have so much in common Uncle alwight:
Neither of you have the slightest clue about God.
alwight
New member
I know enough to know that He probably doesn't exist.
Was it getting lonely on your homophobia thread aCW, I'm beginning to think you have a crush on me?
OR, you could believe in Him but do like so many others do:
Distort His word to fit your own selfish interests.
Being that the homo movement and abortion movement are one in the same, after all of that time defending buggery Uncle alwight, you must have had an overwhelming desire to go out and promote the murder of some babies.
mighty_duck
New member
Stepping in to your shoes, I understand the frustration. But believe me, I don't think there are any real objections to the facts.
The reason you are seeing so much pushback regarding semantics is because we've seen the next step in the quasi-argument so many times before.
I'm sorry, but on this point you couldn't be more wrong.
In common speech, as well as in our mode of thinking, they are practically interchangeable. In this particular setting, we try to be more precise, but it is largely a wasted effort - while we may define them in one way biologically, when we shift to the ethical arena we are prone to using the more common usage.
As an illustration, the definition of Human:
Human (noun)
A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...f.&fp=1ed6f335b982a40e&biw=1920&bih=955&ion=1
The definition of Person:
Person (noun)
A human being regarded as an individual
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...or.r_qf.&fp=cc383f8fffe1ca24&biw=1920&bih=955
May I make a suggestion?
If your intent is not to employ this form of equivocation, why not choose a neutral term, and we can work from there on establishing a real argument to support it?
I gave an example of such a neutral statement in my last post, and you even agreed to it:
"All human organisms, including zygotes, should be protected by law"
The converse position might be something like this:
"All human organisms capable of thought, personality, sentience and/or viability should be protected by law."
No more "human", "a human", "a human being", "person" etc. And no more semantic games to hide behind for either side.
mighty_duck
New member
I think she's dead
But the problem with cases such as hers is that she had the physical hardware to be a person, but we couldn't be sure whether it is working.
It's kind of like having a computer with a defective monitor, keyboard and mouse. Maybe it's running Windows, maybe it's not. Hard to tell.
But if we're shown a loose bit of electrical wire, we can confidently say the wire isn't running Windows. The hardware to do so doesn't exist.