Political Crossfire Forums

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

I'm really sick and tired of all these pro life fundamentalist tyrants trying to impose their morality on the rest of society, by insisting that "killing" or "murdering" a two year old "child" is wrong and that it is important that it is against the law.

First of all, you can't "murder" the two year old infant, because murder by definition means the unlawful killing of another human being, and since it is not actually a human being, it cannot be murdered.

Also in order to kill something it has to be "alive" in the first place. Since the two year old infant is not "alive" it cannot be killed.

The practice is common in India, but even here in the western world there are lots of parents who would like to. The fact is that for whatever reason, they don't feel like they should have to pay for or support the life of the "child" they created. Who are we to force them? Whatever happened to freedom? We need to protect their rights to choose this at all costs.

Lets face it, the infant is not a "baby" nor is it a "child". It is just a worthless biological sack of tissues and cells, and is merely a burden on its parents.

Also it cannot support itself. Without nourishment provided to it by its parents, it will die. Since it is dependent on its parents or someone else for its survival, it is not actually a "human life" and thus has no value, because it does not sustain itself. Only until it can support itself and is strong enough to open the refrigerator door and help itself to its own food does it become a human being or attain personhood, before then it simply has the potential to become a human.

Let's legalize infanticide already, and start valueing the rights of the actual living parents over the rights of worthless tissue which doesn't even deserve any rights because it is not a human being.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.

Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.

Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. The difference being that pro-choice arguments are based on viability, that is the ability of the unborn to survive outside the womb of the mother.

An infant can survive outside the womb, a fetus can not (prior to the point of viability).

The argument that "but, they need someone to feed them" is not the same as viability. To consider the two to be comparable is not only illogical but intellectually dishonest.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Okay fair enough.

But there's two things I wanted to clarify before proceeding.

1) Can you please supply your specific definition and criteria for "viability".. Apparently quibbling definitions is getting old and since we all have a different idea about the same term, so I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you.

2) You said the pro choice arguments are based on viability, but that's vague. There's tons of different claims being made. What is the claim here, that due to a lack of viability a fetus is not a human being, or because of a lack of viability it is ethical and okay to abort a fetus, or what? In other words what exactly is a lack of viability supposed to prove?

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

UrielsFyre wrote: straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.

Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. The difference being that pro-choice arguments are based on viability, that is the ability of the unborn to survive outside the womb of the mother.

An infant can survive outside the womb, a fetus can not (prior to the point of viability).

The argument that "but, they need someone to feed them" is not the same as viability. To consider the two to be comparable is not only illogical but intellectually dishonest. To remove an unviable human from the womb is removing an innocent life from its natural habitat. Using viability is like the old way to detect witches by throwing them into the water tied down to see if they drown or not. Just like back then, millions of innocent people are being killed.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.

Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. The difference being that pro-choice arguments are based on viability, that is the ability of the unborn to survive outside the womb of the mother.

An infant can survive outside the womb, a fetus can not (prior to the point of viability).

The argument that "but, they need someone to feed them" is not the same as viability. To consider the two to be comparable is not only illogical but intellectually dishonest. To remove an unviable human from the womb is removing an innocent life from its natural habitat. Using viability is like the old way to detect witches by throwing them into the water tied down to see if they drown or not. Just like back then, millions of innocent people are being killed. Okay, those two things have nothing in common.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.

Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. The difference being that pro-choice arguments are based on viability, that is the ability of the unborn to survive outside the womb of the mother.

An infant can survive outside the womb, a fetus can not (prior to the point of viability).

The argument that "but, they need someone to feed them" is not the same as viability. To consider the two to be comparable is not only illogical but intellectually dishonest. To remove an unviable human from the womb is removing an innocent life from its natural habitat. Using viability is like the old way to detect witches by throwing them into the water tied down to see if they drown or not. Just like back then, millions of innocent people are being killed. Okay, those two things have nothing in common. Sure they do, they both look at a human organism and say "ok if we do this to it does it survive?"

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create.

Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. The difference being that pro-choice arguments are based on viability, that is the ability of the unborn to survive outside the womb of the mother.

An infant can survive outside the womb, a fetus can not (prior to the point of viability).

The argument that "but, they need someone to feed them" is not the same as viability. To consider the two to be comparable is not only illogical but intellectually dishonest. To remove an unviable human from the womb is removing an innocent life from its natural habitat. Using viability is like the old way to detect witches by throwing them into the water tied down to see if they drown or not. Just like back then, millions of innocent people are being killed. Okay, those two things have nothing in common. Sure they do, they both look at a human organism and say "ok if we do this to it does it survive?"
The question posed may be the same, but the difference is that you are trying to compare the murder of an adult with the abortion of a fetus incapable of survival outside the womb of the mother.

Why don't we get to the core issue here? It would appear that the core issue is that you feel that aborion is immoral because you consider life to begin at conception. And while that position is certainly understandable, the debate becomes one of science. Science indicates that a fetus can not survive without the mother prior to development of a nervous and cirulatory system. Therefore, logic would dictate that a non-sentient organism, such as a fetus prior to the development of a heart and brain, does not have inherent rights.

stulitorasinus · Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 2

I dont know about you but i believe and im sure most dead fetuses would agree with me that the best function key is F8

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

stulitorasinus wrote: I dont know about you but i believe and im sure most dead fetuses would agree with me that the best function key is F8

1. A dead fetus clearly agrees with nothing.

2. F8 brings up the yahoo widget interface on my computer, so what?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: ...by insisting that "killing" or "murdering" a two year old "child" is wrong ... Living up to your screen name, I see. :lol: :) 8:) :lol:

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Your screen name is highly appropriate as it describes just what kind of arguments you create. Actually I didn't create the arguments. I am simply copying them. These arguments are the exact duplicate to a whole crapload of arguments used to justify abortion in this abortion forum and you know it. Another falsehood. The arguments you so very poorly are para[phrasing are not used to justify abortion, but rather are used to challenge pro-life falsehoods. The justification for abortions lie with the woman's constitutional right to control her bodily resources.

So once again, the pro-life argument rest on misrepresentation, deception and falsehoods.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

straw man wrote: Okay fair enough.

But there's two things I wanted to clarify before proceeding.

1) Can you please supply your specific definition and criteria for "viability".. Apparently quibbling definitions is getting old and since we all have a different idea about the same term, so I want to make sure I'm on the same page as you. The medical/scientific definition is the gestational age at which 50% of births are expected to result in a live baby after one year.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject:

Peter signer holds the same positition as you, but hes a **** load better at arguing it.

I mean you don't even define alive, upon which most of your argument rests.

straw man · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Posts: 2948

Who is Peter signer?

name · Joined: 23 May 2006 Posts: 144

Quote: Why don't we get to the core issue here? It would appear that the core issue is that you feel that aborion is immoral because you consider life to begin at conception. And while that position is certainly understandable, the debate becomes one of science. Science indicates that a fetus can not survive without the mother prior to development of a nervous and cirulatory system. Therefore, logic would dictate that a non-sentient organism, such as a fetus prior to the development of a heart and brain, does not have inherent rights.

Agreed. All abortion debates end up inevitably here, where the fight is between science and logic backed by tangible evidence and arbitrary moral arguments. Arbitrary morals should not be laws, our laws should be based on truth; this is why I am pro-choice.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Question, shouldnt it be considered viable if it can survive in its natural habitat(the womb)?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Question, shouldnt it be considered viable if it can survive in its natural habitat(the womb)? No, that's plain stupid. That's just sophistry.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

steen wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Question, shouldnt it be considered viable if it can survive in its natural habitat(the womb)? No, that's plain stupid. That's just sophistry. I dont see how. Its natural for the embryo to be where it is. Its like drowning a born human to see if their witches, its not our natural habitat at the bottom of a pond just as its not the embryos place outside its mother.