Political Crossfire Forums

[Beezer_jB]

straw man wrote: 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.

First, make sure not to say 2 year old infant, rather say 2 month old.
Sorry that was just bothering me.

Anyways, I believe it can be considered murder. Whether a religious argument or not, you could be putting to death he who could be the man to discover a cure for cancer, or aids, or something along those lines.

[steen]

Beezer_jB wrote: First, make sure not to say 2 year old infant, rather say 2 month old.
Sorry that was just bothering me.

Anyways, I believe it can be considered murder. Whether a religious argument or not, you could be putting to death he who could be the man to discover a cure for cancer, or aids, or something along those lines. See, strawman, even your fellow pro-lifers can't read your sarcasm. Perhaps you didn't express yourself well?

[Beezer_jB]

steen wrote: Beezer_jB wrote: First, make sure not to say 2 year old infant, rather say 2 month old.
Sorry that was just bothering me.

Anyways, I believe it can be considered murder. Whether a religious argument or not, you could be putting to death he who could be the man to discover a cure for cancer, or aids, or something along those lines. See, strawman, even your fellow pro-lifers can't read your sarcasm. Perhaps you didn't express yourself well?

That's confusing. Woah.

[Plodder]

any new person that does not know how the lines are drawn would read that as a pro death post.

[Politics Mstr]

straw man wrote: 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.

All right, you are destroying the potential. I agree with you on that. But everything else our ideas don't quite match up.

If somebody has a blueprint for a perpetual motion machine, which would be a great asset to today's scientific world but had not made the machine yet, would you destroy the plans simply because you do not want the machine around? Think about it. These are plans approved by a scientist, all the materials are ready. All you need to do is press a button and the machine will be built. Let's take two scenarios.

1. The pro-life metaphor. The perpetual motion machine is built, helping society.
2. The pro-choice metapor. The plans were burnt. No machine was made. After all, they were only plans, not the machine itself, right?

Obviously, we see the beauty of potential. Kinetic can not exist without potential. This co-existence proves that potential is... well... everything

Having heard that, answer this question. What is the difference between Mozart's fetus and his body at 10-years-old? If Mozart had been killed in an abortion then there would be no Mozart... NONE. If he was 10-years-old, there would be still no Mozart as we know him today!

I have heard a counter argument to this question with "If he was silently poisoned at ten-years-old, his parents would be greatly saddened!" Of course, the ways in which Mozart shaped society rely nothing on his parent's state of mind but what he did for the world itself.

Respond as quickly as possible please.

[Politics Mstr]

steen wrote: Beezer_jB wrote: First, make sure not to say 2 year old infant, rather say 2 month old.
Sorry that was just bothering me.

Anyways, I believe it can be considered murder. Whether a religious argument or not, you could be putting to death he who could be the man to discover a cure for cancer, or aids, or something along those lines. See, strawman, even your fellow pro-lifers can't read your sarcasm. Perhaps you didn't express yourself well?

I don't believe Beezer would approve of your message, Steen.

[straw man]

Politics Mstr wrote: straw man wrote: 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.

All right, you are destroying the potential. I agree with you on that. But everything else our ideas don't quite match up.

If somebody has a blueprint for a perpetual motion machine, which would be a great asset to today's scientific world but had not made the machine yet, would you destroy the plans simply because you do not want the machine around? Think about it. These are plans approved by a scientist, all the materials are ready. All you need to do is press a button and the machine will be built. Let's take two scenarios.

1. The pro-life metaphor. The perpetual motion machine is built, helping society.
2. The pro-choice metapor. The plans were burnt. No machine was made. After all, they were only plans, not the machine itself, right?

Obviously, we see the beauty of potential. Kinetic can not exist without potential. This co-existence proves that potential is... well... everything

Having heard that, answer this question. What is the difference between Mozart's fetus and his body at 10-years-old? If Mozart had been killed in an abortion then there would be no Mozart... NONE. If he was 10-years-old, there would be still no Mozart as we know him today!

I have heard a counter argument to this question with "If he was silently poisoned at ten-years-old, his parents would be greatly saddened!" Of course, the ways in which Mozart shaped society rely nothing on his parent's state of mind but what he did for the world itself.

Respond as quickly as possible please.

You weren't supposed to take that seriously!

[Plodder]

lol i can belive that he did. lol

[Politics Mstr]

Politics Mstr wrote: straw man wrote: 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.

All right, you are destroying the potential. I agree with you on that. But everything else our ideas don't quite match up.

If somebody has a blueprint for a perpetual motion machine, which would be a great asset to today's scientific world but had not made the machine yet, would you destroy the plans simply because you do not want the machine around? Think about it. These are plans approved by a scientist, all the materials are ready. All you need to do is press a button and the machine will be built. Let's take two scenarios.

1. The pro-life metaphor. The perpetual motion machine is built, helping society.
2. The pro-choice metapor. The plans were burnt. No machine was made. After all, they were only plans, not the machine itself, right?

Obviously, we see the beauty of potential. Kinetic can not exist without potential. This co-existence proves that potential is... well... everything

Having heard that, answer this question. What is the difference between Mozart's fetus and his body at 10-years-old? If Mozart had been killed in an abortion then there would be no Mozart... NONE. If he was 10-years-old, there would be still no Mozart as we know him today!

I have heard a counter argument to this question with "If he was silently poisoned at ten-years-old, his parents would be greatly saddened!" Of course, the ways in which Mozart shaped society rely nothing on his parent's state of mind but what he did for the world itself.

Respond as quickly as possible please.

Oh, that was sarcasm? I guess I should have known. :duh1: Pro-choice views can be so wild sometimes so it can be hard to classify :lol:

[AllAmericanMan]

Human beings are not really people until their brain is fully developed at age 21. Until that point, they aren't protected under the constitution and therefor I believe we should have 87th trimester abortions.
After all people are only people when we are fully conscious, how can our conscious be fully developed if the brain is not?

[AllAmericanMan]

Also if your skin is darker than lets say a brown paper bag, you are only 2/3 a person and therefor I should be able to abort you at any age. Also, all Men are created equal, not women. So if you are a woman I can abort you at any age too. Anyone else want to add in some arbitrary separations between human beings?

[Plodder]

I trotally agree, does that mean I can kill my lil brother?