Rubio - no exceptions for rape & incest?

Mott the Hoople said:
Except, like Rubio, you're a man and will never get pregnant so you're opinion on the matter, like Rubio's, means exactly J Shit.
Click to expand...

Given that the taxpayer...and men specifically pay for maternity care, one could argue we now do have a legal and moral right to object where the money that is taken from us goes. that's what happens when you put out your hand.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
It's an embryo. That's why we call it something different. You and me are not embryos which is why when you meet someone you don't say "hey what's up embryo?"
Click to expand...

It's a human embryo. We use the qualifier 'human' to make it distinct from a horse embryo or what have you. But we both were human embryos at one time and very much alive as such. In fact, our lives began the moment we inherited DNA from our parents and it divided and formed our own unique DNA.

Biology 101 and the ethical implications follow.

The fact we are here means no one intervened while we were living embryos and disrupted the processes which occur out of biological neccessity. Which is kind of a torturous way of saying we weren't aborted. Our life processes weren't 'aborted'---that's where the word abortion comes from.

But make no mistake about it. When you abort a living thing you kill a living thing. And the thing is not a glob of cells, but a living human being in an early stage of development.

The ethical implications to abortion are science based and not religious based. And they are what they are.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
It's a human embryo. We use the qualifier 'human' to make it distinct from a horse embryo or what have you. But we both were human embryos at one time and very much alive as such. In fact, our lives began the moment we inherited DNA from our parents and it divided and formed our own unique DNA.

Biology 101 and the ethical implications follow.

The fact we are here means no one intervened while we were living embryos and disrupted the processes which occur out of biological neccessity. Which is kind of a torturous way of saying we weren't aborted. Our life processes weren't 'aborted'---that's where the word abortion comes from.

But make no mistake about it. When you abort a living thing you kill a living thing. And the thing is not a glob of cells, but a living human being in an early stage of development.

The ethical implications to abortion are science based and not religious based. And they are what they are.
Click to expand...

when you masturbate you are killing millions of living things. same thing when you squish ants. maybe both these happen at the same time.

I am well aware it has the DNA of a human, but that is completely meaningless. I can flake a skin cell off of me that has my DNA. It's not sentient, not self aware, it's nothing.

Fetus's are not human in any meaningful sense of the word, and if you want to be pedantic you can say it is not a person, not sentient, not a conscious being capable of knowing what the fuck is going on. It's less intelligent or aware than a fruitfly or an amoeba.

The fact that it will one day be something else is completely meaningless to me. An acorn is not a tree.

Also just so we are being intellectually honest with each other, I do feel there is a strong moral argument one could make for killing children under the age of 2. Maybe even stretch it to 3.
 
evince said:
because your evil
Click to expand...

no, i am logically consistent. I support aborting fetus's because they are not sentient beings. A 11 month year old baby also lacks sentience, and is less self aware than many animals we routinely kill. If it's okay to kill a pig (which some scientists believe may have the sentience of a 2-3 year old) then I see no harm in aborting a baby post-birth. A baby simply is not aware or a conscious being.
 
evil doesn't exist. the universe doesn't care about our so-called 'moral codes'

it's a scientific fact, a young baby is hardly self aware, the brain is still connecting neurons, you can't even form memories or have a sense of self until you are like 4 years old.

killing a little baby is no less morally harmful than killing a monkey or a pig. In fact, killing a pig is probably 'more evil' than killing a 11 month year old any day.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
when you masturbate you are killing millions of living things. same thing when you squish ants. maybe both these happen at the same time.

I am well aware it has the DNA of a human, but that is completely meaningless. I can flake a skin cell off of me that has my DNA. It's not sentient, not self aware, it's nothing.

Fetus's are not human in any meaningful sense of the word, and if you want to be pedantic you can say it is not a person, not sentient, not a conscious being capable of knowing what the fuck is going on. It's less intelligent or aware than a fruitfly or an amoeba.

The fact that it will one day be something else is completely meaningless to me. An acorn is not a tree.

Also just so we are being intellectually honest with each other, I do feel there is a strong moral argument one could make for killing children under the age of 2. Maybe even stretch it to 3.
Click to expand...

Sperm cells aren't living beings whereas a human embryo is a living human being. You were never a sperm and a sperm will never be anything but a sperm, since it ceases to exist at the moment of conception. Human beings begin to exist at the moment of conception.

As a matter of science.

Religion only puts a kind of moral veneer on it: its only contribution is that unjustly killing humans constitutes murder based on the Ten Commandments.

The dirty little irony is that the pro-abortion argument is decidedly unscientific. In fact, it's irrational and would be deemed as such but for the fact abortion must remain legal. Arbitrarily designating that life begins at 2 years of age is the sort of thing that arises out of irrational thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top