Political Crossfire Forums

Big Evil · Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 22

Those long quotes are making me sea-sick, isn't there a rule against that?

The Grandmaster · Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:13 am Post subject:

Mycroft147 wrote:
You skipped the fact that they arent developing human beings and will never develop a brain etc. your grasping at straws.

That they are developing human beings is circular, a premise you have yet to demonstrate. A human being is either a human being or not. If you can’t prove it is a human being, you can’t prove it is a developing human being. And also, show us that definition of a human being that states “a human being is that which has human DNA, and has the potential to grow a brain.”

Coral · Joined: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 2791 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

So two full sets of chromosomes is the standard? Does it need to be full sets or are partial sets ok?

Male gametes naturally looks for an egg to fertilize. If it is not deposited in a manner where it has a chance to fertilize an egg you are denying it's right to life. The reproductive police might not like that. Masturbation equals murder. Incarceration nears.

Once it is a developing embryo is when it becomes human. Male gametes have no right to life as they are not developing human beings. Dont be idiotic.

They are human DNA and they are living and they are created to fertilize eggs during heterosexual marriage. Masturbators are denying them God's work, therefore they need to be protected and sinners (murderers) incarcerated.

You skipped the fact that they arent developing human beings and will never develop a brain etc. your grasping at straws.

Sure they will, when they fertilize an egg. That's a fact. That's what they do. That's how human beings are created.

Mycroft147 · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 142 Location: minnesota

Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

So two full sets of chromosomes is the standard? Does it need to be full sets or are partial sets ok?

Male gametes naturally looks for an egg to fertilize. If it is not deposited in a manner where it has a chance to fertilize an egg you are denying it's right to life. The reproductive police might not like that. Masturbation equals murder. Incarceration nears.

Once it is a developing embryo is when it becomes human. Male gametes have no right to life as they are not developing human beings. Dont be idiotic.

They are human DNA and they are living and they are created to fertilize eggs during heterosexual marriage. Masturbators are denying them God's work, therefore they need to be protected and sinners (murderers) incarcerated.

You skipped the fact that they arent developing human beings and will never develop a brain etc. your grasping at straws.

Sure they will, when they fertilize an egg. That's a fact. That's what they do. That's how human beings are created.

Yeah if they are combined with an egg, by themselves they are not a developing human being. get it through your head.

Coral · Joined: 13 Apr 2004 Posts: 2791 Location: Hold 'em, Texas

Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Coral wrote: Citbulldog96 wrote: The argument that a women has the right to choose is interesting. It stuns me that they use this as an excuse to be selfish. Wether you admit it or not any women who has an abortion is being selfish and not taking responsibility for her own actions(having sex). And where are the father's rights in all this, if it takes two to make a fetus then it should at least take two to end one.

Is it because you deem it selfish? Are you suggesting everything selfish that harms others be outlawed? If so, you better shut down 98% of the country.

yeah, its easier and makes more sense to just stick to the facts. abortion is murder.

You cannot make this claim, unless you are able to demonstrate that it in fact is, something I have not seen anyone on these forums do yet in months of trying.

Heres a start. Prove this wrong first.

An embryo is obviously a living entity. Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being. It is also not part of the mother since it has its own DNA which differs from the mothers and her organs. That a human beings life starts at conception is the only theory which makes sense and does not rely on our changing technology or arbitrary opinions on the definition of human life.

My hair contains DNA, as do my fingernails. Should, therefore, it be illegal to cut my hair or trim my nails? No, it would be ridiculous to suggest so. Just as it is ridiculous to use DNA as evidence of being "a living human being."

Also, you are making the same "arbitrary opinion" that those whom you are against are accused of doing. Saying that human life starts at conception is even more arbitrary than saying it doesn't. At least the other side offering medical evidence as to when the heart forms, brain wave activity begins, the nervous system develops, etc.

Hey good job taking the DNA thing out of context. the embryo has its own seperate DNA form the mother, unlike her hair or fingernails. It also has the potential to develop into a human life, unlike hair or fingernails. And i included the conception argument because it is the only option left that makes sense.

You specifically said "Its DNA also proves that it is a member of our species. Therefore it is a living human being." Are you denying this argument was made?

No, im saying you didnt look at the whole argument and take it into consideration. I said the fact that it has its OWN UNIQUE DNA SEPERATE from the mother is one fo the things that makes it human. you ignored the last part when countering that argument.

Now, you bring in potential to develop in to human life. Following that argument, any ejaculatory emission which did not result in the conception of a child could equally be taken to be "murder" by your logic. Also, I think it is interesting that you refer to it as potential to develop in to human life, which means that it is not human life yet. You are contradicting your own argument.

False. The ejaculate itself does not have the potential to develop into a human being. The embryo does.

So two full sets of chromosomes is the standard? Does it need to be full sets or are partial sets ok?

Male gametes naturally looks for an egg to fertilize. If it is not deposited in a manner where it has a chance to fertilize an egg you are denying it's right to life. The reproductive police might not like that. Masturbation equals murder. Incarceration nears.

Once it is a developing embryo is when it becomes human. Male gametes have no right to life as they are not developing human beings. Dont be idiotic.

They are human DNA and they are living and they are created to fertilize eggs during heterosexual marriage. Masturbators are denying them God's work, therefore they need to be protected and sinners (murderers) incarcerated.

You skipped the fact that they arent developing human beings and will never develop a brain etc. your grasping at straws.

Sure they will, when they fertilize an egg. That's a fact. That's what they do. That's how human beings are created.

Yeah if they are combined with an egg, by themselves they are not a developing human being. get it through your head.

How can there ever be a formed brain when the sperm aren't allowed to fertilize an egg? I think you should talk to your congressman about this. There are way too many murderers these days. Sperm being denied the chance of birth - criminal!

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Oh, honestly... arguing about unused sperm? Please...

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Sailor Moon wrote: Oh, honestly... arguing about unused sperm? Please...

The argument is not meant to be serious. It is meant to point out the flaws in using "potential at human life" as a strict tenet in one's argument.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2325 Location: Edinburgh

Mycroft147 wrote: Prole wrote: Mycroft147 wrote:
Once again, your whole argument revovlves around the fact that you say abortion is not mmurder. Justify this. TEll me why the killing of a live human is not murder. Otherwise you have no argument.
A preborn human is not, until a point, a conscious entity. It is capable of feeling neither pleasure or pain. It has no emotions, or feelings, or any of the things that truly make someone human. Therefore, killing it before consciousness is developed (around the third trimsester, as near as I can tell) is completely amoral. In my view, at least.

If you feel that it is somehow wrong to kill someone because they are biologically human, I would like to know why, and would also like to know why I should adopt your views. Thus far, every justification for one's belief that abortion should be illegal and/or is immoral has some religious grounding, which I feel is not justified for a secular society such as ours, as well as an agnostic such as myself.

So you justify abortion up to the point "around the third trimester, as near as i can tell"? Do you expect everyone to abide by your arbitrary judgement on this? No one knows when a baby becomes fully conscious, so your statement doesnt stand up at all, unless everyone randomly decided that point on their own, which is obviously wrong.

It is not arbitrary, nor is it true that "no one knows when a baby becomes fully conscious." A preborn human becomes conscious when they develop sensory awareness, which is during the third trimester. We know that a preborn human does not have sensory awareness before this, and know that it does after; the nervous system is not sufficiently developed for awareness until the third trimester.

That consciousness is what makes one human (in the moral sense) is of course arbitrary, as well as your notion that being homo sapien is what makes one human. But the notion that I'm just picking out a random point in time is false.

Mycroft147 wrote: Besides that, why should "consciousness" decide whether or not someone deserves to live? Are you saying that everyone in a coma can be killed?

Yup. Only justifiably by those responsible for them, but absolutely yes.

Mycroft147 wrote: According to this reasoning embryos would have more of a riht to life than them, because the chance of the embryo becoming conscious if allowed to develop is extremely high. Obviously this is a poor point to base your arguments upon.

Potential means absolutely nothing by itself. You are a potential corpse. In fact, I'm quite certain that at some point in the future, you will be one. Should I treat you as a corpse, merely because you have the potential to be so? Or should I treat you as what you are, the same way that I am arguing to treat preborn humans?

Mycroft147 wrote: The embryo is a living(obviously, or there would be nothing to kill) developing, Genetically different from the mother, member of the species homo sapiens. How is this different from you or me? What justifies the killing of this being?

Because differing genes alone, or even being biologically homo sapien, does not make one human. Therefore, any justification for having an abortion is sufficient.

As per your views, I am still wondering:
Prole wrote: If you feel that it is somehow wrong to kill someone because they are biologically human, I would like to know why, and would also like to know why I should adopt your views. Thus far, every justification for one's belief that abortion should be illegal and/or is immoral has some religious grounding, which I feel is not justified for a secular society such as ours, as well as an agnostic such as myself.

Sailor Moon · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 2782 Location: O-town, Florida

Pro lifers are not worried about "protecting the life of the sperm or the unfertilized egg"... why is it, that when we discuss conception, pro choicers always make snide remarks regarding protecting sperm or an egg?

Not one person on here is arguing for the life of the sperm. Sperm doesnt grow. Neither do eggs. The two, together, well- THEY make an additional person. a sperm doesnt make a person, alone, nor does an egg.

Ok..

So now that all thats cleared up for the confused people... why are we still arguing about friggin sperm?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Sailor Moon wrote: Pro lifers are not worried about "protecting the life of the sperm or the unfertilized egg"... why is it, that when we discuss conception, pro choicers always make snide remarks regarding protecting sperm or an egg?

Not one person on here is arguing for the life of the sperm. Sperm doesnt grow. Neither do eggs. The two, together, well- THEY make an additional person. a sperm doesnt make a person, alone, nor does an egg.

Ok..

So now that all thats cleared up for the confused people... why are we still arguing about friggin sperm?

See my previous post.

cap'n queasy · Joined: 15 May 2004 Posts: 34968

Mycroft147 wrote: Nelson wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

Assuming that abortion will go on even if abortion is illegalized, as nearly any rational person can logically deduce:

The daughter of any family who is rich will just fly to Canada or Europe for an abortion. Anyone whose child is poor will most likely be forced to perform an illegal abortion which is far more dangerous for the mother than a procedure performed in a hospital.

Banning abortion does not affect the richest Americans, only the poorest ones.

Yes abortion will go on if it is illegal. So does murder, rape, etc. Should we legalize these things to make them safer for all concerned? I for one say no.

:clap:

You know what I think the worst pro-death argument is?

"It's just a mass of cells"

Like they aren't just a "mass of cells" themselves. :lol:

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

cap'n queasy wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Nelson wrote: Mycroft147 wrote: Does anyone here have an actual sound, logical argument for abortion? Im doing a paper on it, so far i can't find anything that is even minorly convincing to me.

Assuming that abortion will go on even if abortion is illegalized, as nearly any rational person can logically deduce:

The daughter of any family who is rich will just fly to Canada or Europe for an abortion. Anyone whose child is poor will most likely be forced to perform an illegal abortion which is far more dangerous for the mother than a procedure performed in a hospital.

Banning abortion does not affect the richest Americans, only the poorest ones.

Yes abortion will go on if it is illegal. So does murder, rape, etc. Should we legalize these things to make them safer for all concerned? I for one say no.

:clap:

You know what I think the worst pro-death argument is?

"It's just a mass of cells"

Like they aren't just a "mass of cells" themselves. :lol:

Out of curiosity, where do you get the notion that pro-choice advocates are "pro-death?" I would do my my utmost to convince any woman out there to keep from having an abortion. But, in the end, it is her decision. I am pro-CHOICE.

Just because your side refers to themselves as "pro-life" does not mean that those who disagree with you are necessarily the inverse "pro-death."

Big Evil · Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 22

UrielsFyre wrote: Just because your side refers to themselves as "pro-life" does not mean that those who disagree with you are necessarily the inverse "pro-death."
Why do you feel you have to say things you know to be untrue? Do you just LIKE being a jerk?

Pro-choice means the choice to kill a fetus, therefore, it is an acceptable wording to call it "pro-death" because the choice results in the death of the fetus.

I shouldn't even have to be saying this, I hate it when people play dumb. What are you? Ten?

"Did you eat those cookies in the cookie jar?"
"What cookie jar? I see a box but no jar.." *Smack!*

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Big Evil wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Just because your side refers to themselves as "pro-life" does not mean that those who disagree with you are necessarily the inverse "pro-death."
Why do you feel you have to say things you know to be untrue? Do you just LIKE being a jerk?

Pro-choice means the choice to kill a fetus, therefore, it is an acceptable wording to call it "pro-death" because the choice results in the death of the fetus.

I shouldn't even have to be saying this, I hate it when people play dumb. What are you? Ten?

"Did you eat those cookies in the cookie jar?"
"What cookie jar? I see a box but no jar.." *Smack!*

Actually, I am not ten. I am an adult, hold a bachelor's and a master's in communication disciplines, and have been involved in competitve public speaking for over a decade. I did not want to mention this, but your continous questioning of my age and that I am "playing dumb" made it a necessity.

Therefore, in my educated opinion, it is fallacious to simplify the stance of pro-choice advocates to that of being "pro-death." To use that terminology is to strip away the fact that many pro-choice advocates, such as myself, feel that no woman should ever get an abortion, but we accept the fact that it is her right to make that choice and not mine.

Big Evil · Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 22

What partof reality don't you understand? This isn't a matter of what you think, abortion means death, maybe you don't like the results of that choice, but that doesn't change the fact that it's death. (Though far be it for me to try and understand how you can be so disgusted with something, yet advocate it.. What is this? Bizzaro world?)

It's like you not wanting for me to call your car an automobile, don't matter what kindof car it is, it's an automobile. If you don't want to be riding an automobile, then get yourself a bike.. Obviously you're a master at communicating but a peasent in listening, no amount of schooling can teach you life's lessons, and the two big ones are..

Acceptance
And Trust..

The sooner you accept the facts of life, the sooner you can trust yourself and your descisions (or lack thereoff). Untill then, you're only half-human..

I don't even care so much about abortion in itself, people die everyday.. I care about the cause of WANTING an abortion, which is a result of ignorance, lazyness, and selfishness.. and I have an obligation to defend pro-life advocates, because they show to be the exact oppisite and are therfore "good" on both a moral and biological scale.. Nature has no room for the weak.. And those that think only of themselves are inheritly weak..

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Big Evil wrote: What partof reality don't you understand? This isn't a matter of what you think, abortion means death, maybe you don't like the results of that choice, but that doesn't change the fact that it's death. (Though far be it for me to try and understand how you can be so disgusted with something, yet advocate it.. What is this? Bizzaro world?)

It's like you not wanting for me to call your car an automobile, don't matter what kindof car it is, it's an automobile. If you don't want to be riding an automobile, then get yourself a bike.. Obviously you're a master at communicating but a peasent in listening, no amount of schooling can teach you life's lessons, and the two big ones are..

Acceptance
And Trust..

The sooner you accept the facts of life, the sooner you can trust yourself and your descisions (or lack thereoff). Untill then, you're only half-human..

I don't even care so much about abortion in itself, people die everyday.. I care about the cause of WANTING an abortion, which is a result of ignorance, lazyness, and selfishness.. and I have an obligation to defend pro-life advocates, because they show to be the exact oppisite and are therfore "good" on both a moral and biological scale.. Nature has no room for the weak.. And those that think only of themselves are inheritly weak..

I disagree with you and any who feel as though you do. It is not disagreeing with "the natural order of things." You can call abortion "death" all you like. And, to be honest, I won't completely disagree with you. It is ending something that has the potential to become a child. Call it "death" or call it "terminating a pregnancy," the result is the same. However, my ethical feelings on an issue do not override the fact that I am in no position to tell another person that they are not allowed to make a choice regarding their body and the fetus contained within (pre-viability).

Second, I trust my decisions very much. I accept responsibility for my actions. Part of personal freedom is personal responsibility. A woman is free to have an abortion, but she must be responsible for the effects of that decision (generally how it effects her later on).

And to say I am thinking only of myself is incorrect. If abortion were declared illegal tomorrow, it would not personally effect me in the slightest. It would effect others and impede their rights and freedoms. That is what I am fighting against.

Big Evil · Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 22

Personal freedoms are over-rated, we as Americans have so much personal freedom, and look how unstable are country is..

Japan is uber-conservative, and look how succesful they are! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe other places and see how well-off they are depending on how they run things..

Besides, why should we defend personal choice? America was founded on conservatism. George Washington/Abaraham Linchon are prime examples..

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Big Evil wrote: Personal freedoms are over-rated, we as Americans have so much personal freedom, and look how unstable are country is..

Japan is uber-conservative, and look how succesful they are! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to observe other places and see how well-off they are depending on how they run things..

Besides, why should we defend personal choice? America was founded on conservatism. George Washington/Abaraham Linchon are prime examples..

I defend personal freedoms because it was the concept upon which this country was founded.

Big Evil · Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 22

Did I studder? I just said two of our most memorable, important presidents would say differantly.. :roll:

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

Big Evil wrote: Did I studder? I just said two of our most memorable, important presidents would say differantly.. :roll:

Becuase Washington and Lincoln would limit freedom (of which I am not convinced) that means that it is okay to go against the founding principles of the nation and strip away freedoms?