SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2016, 06:03 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(27-06-2016 08:37 PM)Dom Wrote:  It ain't human nor a person until it is viable without a live brooder.
I agree that it's not a person at that point, but to claim that it's not a human is completely absurd. It might be in an early stage of development, but it's a human all the same. It doesn't suddenly turn into a human by cutting its umbilical cord.

(27-06-2016 08:37 PM)Dom Wrote:  If you want it to be viable sooner, set about designing a better non-human brooder and a harmless transfer procedure. Raise a bunch of orphans, we don't have enough people in this world yet. (sarcasm)

You don't have a say over what happens to my body. It is not your right. My body is the only thing that's mine. Anything else is slavery.

If the thing worked the other way around, and men were the ones going through pregnancy and giving birth, and women were deciding whether you had to risk your life to do it, or birth a child you won't be able to care for, y'all would sing a different song altogether.

Apart from it not being your right to mess with my body, I seriously question the wisdom of birthing all these unwanted children.

Don't take it personal if I don't end up debating this, it tends to make me angry. And debating in anger is not a good thing.
I'm not sure whose views you are responding to. It sounds like you think I want to stop anyone from getting an abortion, but I said exactly the opposite in this thread.

(27-06-2016 08:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's precisely why you should never masturbate and seek forgiveness for unintentional spontaneous nocturnal emissions. I think that women might be able to masturbate though because it has no effect on ovulation. ..... Consider
(27-06-2016 09:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, not a person == not an unborn child. It's just a fetus.
(28-06-2016 12:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Is your toenail a human? What's so special about a bunch of cells? The fact that they *could grow* into a human? So what? If they die before they're even conscious what's wrong?
I've heard these dismissals so many times before and I have to say it gets tiresome. How can you look at these foetuses and think they're just "a bunch of cells"? How can you believe that killing any of these is morally equivalent to masturbating?


[Image: 9579.jpg][Image: 9580.jpg][Image: 9571.jpg][Image: 9572.jpg][Image: 9573.jpg][Image: 9575.jpg]

(28-06-2016 12:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Didja know that a lot of foetuses are aborted spontaneously (involuntarily) by the mother if they have birth defects - evolution's put in a few fail-safes. Not worth carrying a child to term if it's gonna be fucked from the get-go. Now tell me. With modern medicine maybe some of those could be saved and turned into totally fucked humans. Would you be happy to support that in defiance of the mother's wishes? In other words, do you still find it morally reprehensible to kill such a foetus?

And if not, then what's so wrong with killing a viable foetus at the same stage
I think you answered your own question there. The decisions not to save an already dying foetus is not the same as intentionally killing a perfectly healthy one.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 06:08 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2016 09:05 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 05:39 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

You forgot to say where these "principles" come from, and why, what YOU think is or is not moral, applies to anyone, other than you.
Anyone who says "Abortion is immoral" implies there is a UNIVERSAL morality, that applies to everyone. You (and Sister Mary Vosur) have not even BEGUN to address that.

Quote:The waters were muddy before anybody jumped in. It's a very blurry line as to when a clump of cells becomes a human/person (whatever word you like).

No it isn't. No brain and no neural tube is not "human".
You muddied them with your specific (rare) example of procedures that are almost never done, in 2016.

Quote:I just want to know why abortions are perfectly acceptable, but partial birth abortions and infanticide are not.

Great. Ask someone else, somewhere else. The questions are IRRELEVANT to normal early abortions, AND you have not demonstrated your universal/absolute morality applies to anyone, other than you.

Quote:You point out that infanticide is illegal. Well, all I can say to that is noshitsherlock, my question is SHOULD it be illegal, why/why not? It's just pro-life bullshit, parroted and out of context.

YOU compared it to something that it is not. YOU made the link, now you can't defend it.

Quote:Why is it a clump of meat seconds before being born, but a sacred life seconds after?

Because the LAW says that. I didn't write the LAW.
It's also more irrelevant shit. I never said that. You (dishonestly) made that comparison, and DISHONESTLY made it look like I was saying that. I DID NOT SAY THAT, nor did I imply that.

Quote:The point I'm making is that you're prolife when it comes to partial-birth abortions and infanticide. You and Vosur are only drawing the line at different places.

Totally wrong. I am not. You assumed that. I have not even BEGUN the discussion. No adequate definitions have been made. He said abortion was "immoral". He did not define what that even means, ... then YOU come along with your reductio ad absurdam irrelevant bullshit. You can't even tell us how often the procedures are done, or why, or why questions about these rare procedures are even relevant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2016, 06:15 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 06:03 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 08:37 PM)Dom Wrote:  It ain't human nor a person until it is viable without a live brooder.
I agree that it's not a person at that point, but to claim that it's not a human is completely absurd. It might be in an early stage of development, but it's a human all the same. It doesn't suddenly turn into a human by cutting its umbilical cord.

(27-06-2016 08:37 PM)Dom Wrote:  If you want it to be viable sooner, set about designing a better non-human brooder and a harmless transfer procedure. Raise a bunch of orphans, we don't have enough people in this world yet. (sarcasm)

You don't have a say over what happens to my body. It is not your right. My body is the only thing that's mine. Anything else is slavery.

If the thing worked the other way around, and men were the ones going through pregnancy and giving birth, and women were deciding whether you had to risk your life to do it, or birth a child you won't be able to care for, y'all would sing a different song altogether.

Apart from it not being your right to mess with my body, I seriously question the wisdom of birthing all these unwanted children.

Don't take it personal if I don't end up debating this, it tends to make me angry. And debating in anger is not a good thing.
I'm not sure whose views you are responding to. It sounds like you think I want to stop anyone from getting an abortion, but I said exactly the opposite in this thread.

(27-06-2016 08:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's precisely why you should never masturbate and seek forgiveness for unintentional spontaneous nocturnal emissions. I think that women might be able to masturbate though because it has no effect on ovulation. ..... Consider
(27-06-2016 09:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK, not a person == not an unborn child. It's just a fetus.
(28-06-2016 12:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Is your toenail a human? What's so special about a bunch of cells? The fact that they *could grow* into a human? So what? If they die before they're even conscious what's wrong?
I've heard these dismissals so many times before and I have to say it gets tiresome. How can you look at these foetuses and think they're just "a bunch of cells"? How can you believe that killing any of these is morally equivalent to masturbating?


[Image: 9579.jpg][Image: 9580.jpg][Image: 9571.jpg][Image: 9572.jpg][Image: 9573.jpg][Image: 9575.jpg]

(28-06-2016 12:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  Didja know that a lot of foetuses are aborted spontaneously (involuntarily) by the mother if they have birth defects - evolution's put in a few fail-safes. Not worth carrying a child to term if it's gonna be fucked from the get-go. Now tell me. With modern medicine maybe some of those could be saved and turned into totally fucked humans. Would you be happy to support that in defiance of the mother's wishes? In other words, do you still find it morally reprehensible to kill such a foetus?

And if not, then what's so wrong with killing a viable foetus at the same stage
I think you answered your own question there. The decisions not to save an already dying foetus is not the same as intentionally killing a perfectly healthy one.

Emotional bullshit. Appeal to emotion. Google "images of ape fetuses", or "dolphin fetuses" and then explain to us what you see is any different, "morally". The fact is, you have no definitions of anything. You can't defend anything, scientifically.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2016, 06:39 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 06:03 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 08:37 PM)Dom Wrote:  It ain't human nor a person until it is viable without a live brooder.
I agree that it's not a person at that point, but to claim that it's not a human is completely absurd. It might be in an early stage of development, but it's a human all the same. It doesn't suddenly turn into a human by cutting its umbilical cord.

If it can't survive without a live brooder, it's not an entity at all. If it can't feel, there is no moral issue. If it can't think, it doesn't care. It's a potential human. We can argue about when it becomes human to a point - I'd be willing to entertain that it is human once it is conscious. Morally - I'd be in agreement that there needs to be empathy for it once it can feel pain.

But what is this "sanctity of life" when applied to a mass that is not viable, cannot feel and cannot think? It's woo, that's what it is.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dom's post
28-06-2016, 06:41 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 06:03 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I agree that it's not a person at that point, but to claim that it's not a human is completely absurd. It might be in an early stage of development, but it's a human all the same. It doesn't suddenly turn into a human by cutting its umbilical cord.

Dishonest, inconsistent bullshit. You said it was "killing babies".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2016, 06:47 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 05:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-06-2016 07:47 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I think it's morally wrong to kill an unborn child because it's a human, not because it's a person.

Cluck cluck cluck.
What is this ? The old ladies Catholic Women's Clucking Club ?
No one cares what someone who is totally unable to even begin to define their terms asserts, with no definitions of anything. This isn't 1st Grade Catholic School, Sister Mary Vosur. It's no more an "unborn child" than it is an "unborn great grandfather", or an "unborn adolescent". It's NOT A CHILD. Your use of the word "child" and "baby" is dishonest, and intended to produce an emotional response. It's a "knee-jerk tie-in to anti-abortionist garbage. It's a complete failure. It's not "killing a child". "Killing children" is murder and illegal. It's not "killing a child", you dishonest intellectual fraud, any more than removing diseased cells, from a tumor, is "killing humans". It's a POTENTIAL human. You have in NO WAY defined your terms, and you are totally unable to define your terms.

When EXACTLY in the process, does the union of two gametes become "human" ? Define that, idiot. Very very exactly. You can't. What is "a human" ?

You assert it's "immoral", yet you have not even begun to define what that means, from where that arises, and what is moral or immoral, or why. (Good luck with that). You just mindlessly parrot the crap of the pro-life idiots.

Cluck cluck cluck.
Welcome to the meeting of the Old Catholic Women's Clucking Club.
Sister Mary Vosur, presiding.
Seems like I hit a nerve when I exposed you for the ignorant clown that you are once again. You appear to be so embarrassed about it that you not only decided not to respond to my post, but also decided to pretend like I never responded to you in the first place. You're quite literally pretending that I never made that post by claiming that I never defined any of my terms and by repeating your assertion that it's not a child. You're also demonstrating your abysmal reading comprehension again when you refer to my use of the word "baby". Guess what, I didn't use that word a single time in this entire thread. I provided you with definitions from four mainstream dictionaries in my post; I can't help it if you're too lazy or too dishonest to read my sources.

Will you concede to the indisputable fact that you were wrong to claim that most abortions are performed when the child has no brain and is only a mass of undifferentiated cells? I doubt it. You clearly don't have the integrity to admit when you're wrong.

I also doubt you'll ever respond to my thorough deconstruction of your latest nonsense in the politics thread. The facts aren't on your side of that issue so there's not much you can do to prove me wrong there.

(28-06-2016 06:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Emotional bullshit. Appeal to emotion. Google "images of ape fetuses", or "dolphin fetuses" and then explain to us what you see is any different, "morally".
It's not that difficult to figure out. Humans slaughter tens of billions of animals for food every year (the numerical equivalent of wiping out the entire human race several times over) because we don't value the members of other species as much as we value our own. The moral difference between killing a human foetus and killing an ape or a dolphin foetus is just that, one is a member of our own species, the others are not.

(28-06-2016 06:15 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The fact is, you have no definitions of anything. You can't defend anything, scientifically.
This is already the second time you decided to pretend like I never responded to you. I proved both of those 'facts' wrong in the post you didn't respond to (by providing several definitions of the term "child" and by refuting your "no brain" and "clump of undifferentiated cells" claims with science from reputable government sources respectively). I would suggest you to read it again.

(28-06-2016 06:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Dishonest, inconsistent bullshit. You said it was "killing babies".
Go ahead and quote me using the word "babies." I know you won't be able to because I never used the term "baby" or "babies" in this entire thread. Are you going to apologize to me for putting words in my mouth? I doubt it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 06:39 AM)Dom Wrote:  If it can't survive without a live brooder, it's not an entity at all. If it can't feel, there is no moral issue. If it can't think, it doesn't care. It's a potential human. We can argue about when it becomes human to a point - I'd be willing to entertain that it is human once it is conscious. Morally - I'd be in agreement that there needs to be empathy for it once it can feel pain.

But what is this "sanctity of life" when applied to a mass that is not viable, cannot feel and cannot think? It's woo, that's what it is.
I think it's a matter of opinion like any other moral issue. I'm not particularly interested in convincing you or anyone else that your moral views are wrong because it has no practical relevance in this case. We all agree that abortions shouldn't be outlawed.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 07:06 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
Vos, did you just literally appeal to the fact that a foetus looks kinda human? WTF dude? So does a fucking mannequin look human, should I cry if one gets sent to the scrapheap?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 07:07 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 06:03 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I think you answered your own question there. The decisions not to save an already dying foetus is not the same as intentionally killing a perfectly healthy one.

Cry me a river.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2016, 07:12 AM
RE: SCOTUS bitch slaps Texas on abortion rights.
(28-06-2016 07:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  Vos, did you just literally appeal to the fact that a foetus looks kinda human? WTF dude? So does a fucking mannequin look human, should I cry if one gets sent to the scrapheap?
I suppose it depends on whether or not you think that killing a biological organism of your own species is equivalent to dismantling a statue made out of fiberglass and plastic.

(28-06-2016 07:07 AM)morondog Wrote:  Cry me a river.
I don't think I said anything to you that would warrant this kind of response. What gives, mate?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: