Pathetic Pelosi... just PATHETIC....

apple0154 said:
But it does require full dehumanization because once that door is opened there will be no closing it.

Remember the Scott Peterson case? If his wife would have had an abortion it would have been legal, however, because he killed her while she was pregnant the State decided to charge him with two murders. Of course, the State knew that such an horrendous crime would sway the jury to convict him on the murder of the fetus.

As I mentioned about the case in Quebec, Canada the man tried to prevent his girlfriend from having an abortion and the Supreme Court of Canada had to rule that a fetus is not a human being. If it was a human being surely the father would have the right to stop the mother from killing his child. How could we possibly make an exception without being the ultimate hypocrite?

There was a time when some women would deliberately get pregnant in order to snag the man. I can see the reverse happening if a fetus is considered a human being. Some jackass will deliberately try to impregnate a gal knowing if they have a child together he will be in her life for the next 18 years, one way or another, with visiting rights.

If the fetus is granted any rights or if there is any alluding to the fetus being a human being some case will come up where the line will be pushed and a precedent set. Any half way measure will not work. There will always be people looking to exploit an opportunity until abortion is completely outlawed.

I think the problem stems from folks believing abortion could be outlawed and things would go back to how they were pre Row vs Wade. Those were different times. People tended to accept religious and government policy without too much question.

Today, people are more educated and aware. They can see further down the road. They want to know exactly where things will lead and not have a "group" or "panel" making arbitrary decisions about their life.
Click to expand...

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.
 
Seriously though apple.

You promote dehumanization so it makes all the edges neat; it's even MORE barbaric than momentary hard choices.

You promote dehumanization not to protect civil rights, but to condone murder.

I'm the one with the slippery slope argument. If we start denying innocent babies their own humanity, so it's mentally convenient when we want to kill them, where does it stop? Dehumanizing conservatives? Dehumanizng the goyim, who are but pigs before god?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Seriously though apple.

You promote dehumanization so it makes all the edges neat; it's even MORE barbaric than momentary hard choices.

You promote dehumanization not to protect civil rights, but to condone murder.

I'm the one with the slippery slope argument. If we start denying innocent babies their own humanity, so it's mentally convenient when we want to kill them, where does it stop? Dehumanizing conservatives? Dehumanizng the goyim, who are but pigs before god?
Click to expand...

He uses the same thought process that the Nazi's used, during WW II.
The dehuminized the Jews, so that it excused no matter what they did to them.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Seriously though apple.

You promote dehumanization so it makes all the edges neat; it's even MORE barbaric than momentary hard choices.
Click to expand...

But that's just the point. There shouldn't be any need for "hard" choices. The same rules should apply across the board to every human being. The choice, the answer, the solution should be easy just as it would be in any other situation.

You promote dehumanization not to protect civil rights, but to condone murder.
Click to expand...

When it comes to my wife or sister or any other female their health and well-being is not dependent on hard choices anymore than mine or any other person's health or well-being is dependent on hard choices. It's a false dichotomy raised by people who propose an absurd idea.

I'm the one with the slippery slope argument. If we start denying innocent babies their own humanity, so it's mentally convenient when we want to kill them, where does it stop? Dehumanizing conservatives? Dehumanizng the goyim, who are but pigs before god?
Click to expand...

Since the beginning of time birth has been the demarcation point. Sure, there was always someone coming along that wanted to tinker with it but we always return there because all the tinkering and suggestions have been shown to be nonsense.

Now it's the DNA craze. "Everyone has unique DNA." It turns out some people have more than one copy. It turns out, while in utero, a "human being", a fertilized cell, can split and become two human beings. And then it can happen that one of those "human beings" can assimilate the other "human being". Are we talking about human beings here?

First there was Bill. Then there was Bill and Jane. Then there was only Bill. Or is Bill even there because, after all, Bill's DNA makeup has changed as well. Who, or what, was that first fertilized cell?

For me, the bottom line is we just don't know enough about how things work and to start affording rights to those things, rights that will interfere with the rights of those we know are unquestionably human beings, is unacceptable. It cheapens all human beings.
 
apple0154 said:
But that's just the point. There shouldn't be any need for "hard" choices. .
Click to expand...

Life shouldn't be hard. I agree. But it is. And your dehumanization to simplify and be in a state of rosy denial i find horrific, and morally untenable.

You are a brainwashed monster.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Life shouldn't be hard. I agree. But it is. And your dehumanization to simplify and be in a state of rosy denial i find horrific, and morally untenable.

You are a brainwashed monster.
Click to expand...

Flattery will get you nowhere!

Sooo, regarding my previous post, "Who, or what, was that first fertilized cell?" Bill? Jane? Neither? Are we supposed to declare something a human being when we don't even know what that "something" is? That sure raises the value of human beings. NOT!
 
apple0154 said:
Flattery will get you nowhere!

Sooo, regarding my previous post, "Who, or what, was that first fertilized cell?" Bill? Jane? Neither? Are we supposed to declare something a human being when we don't even know what that "something" is? That sure raises the value of human beings. NOT!
Click to expand...

I don't espouse a policy of declaring random things to be human beings. I'm talking specifically about in utero babies. Baby human beings, still in the womb.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I don't espouse a policy of declaring random things to be human beings. I'm talking specifically about in utero babies. Baby human beings, still in the womb.
Click to expand...

What can be more random than declaring something a human being when that something may be a single male or it may be a male and a female or it may be two males or it may be two females or it may be a single male with a bit of female mixed in or a single female with a bit of male mixed in or it may have one set of DNA or it may have two sets of DNA and, finally, it has a 25-50% chance of dying and we'd never know exactly when or the cause?

Random: "Unpredictable...... Relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely....... In a haphazard way"

When it comes to fertilized cells I think "random" is a most apt word.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But according to the Nazi's, they weren't human; therefore they legitimized their treatment of them.
Click to expand...

And they were wrong.

Unfortunately, anti-abortionists are on the other side of the same coin. Designating something that isn't a human being as a human being with the stipulation it can be killed if another human being is defective (the mother may abort if she has a defective body) will result in the logical argument that innocent human beings can be killed by defective human beings.

Let's say we have a woman who is accused of killing a guard while robbing a bank. Just to underlie the type of person she is we'll say she did that while on parole after being convicted of selling drugs to school kids a few years prior.

When returned to prison it's discovered she is pregnant and requires an abortion due to a defective body. Legally she's allowed to kill an innocent, healthy human being in order to save her own life.

Now we move half way around the world and a top notch General is on his way to visit a MASH unit. He's wounded. His liver is blown apart. Due to enemy fire he can not be evacuated. He's not going to make it unless.....

Now, out comes the logical argument. If a drug-selling, murdering woman can kill an innocent human being in order to save her own life is there anyone who can argue against that General demanding all the enlisted people at that MASH unit undergo blood typing and should one have a suitable liver they must donate it?

If you disagree with the General's right to effectively kill (or have someone else kill) another innocent human being in order to save his own life please explain to me why?

This test question will be graded on the use of common sense. One point will be deducted each time the words "exception" and "different" are used. :D
 
apple0154 said:
And they were wrong.

Unfortunately, anti-abortionists are on the other side of the same coin. Designating something that isn't a human being as a human being with the stipulation it can be killed if another human being is defective (the mother may abort if she has a defective body) will result in the logical argument that innocent human beings can be killed by defective human beings.

Let's say we have a woman who is accused of killing a guard while robbing a bank. Just to underlie the type of person she is we'll say she did that while on parole after being convicted of selling drugs to school kids a few years prior.

When returned to prison it's discovered she is pregnant and requires an abortion due to a defective body. Legally she's allowed to kill an innocent, healthy human being in order to save her own life.

Now we move half way around the world and a top notch General is on his way to visit a MASH unit. He's wounded. His liver is blown apart. Due to enemy fire he can not be evacuated. He's not going to make it unless.....

Now, out comes the logical argument. If a drug-selling, murdering woman can kill an innocent human being in order to save her own life is there anyone who can argue against that General demanding all the enlisted people at that MASH unit undergo blood typing and should one have a suitable liver they must donate it?

If you disagree with the General's right to effectively kill (or have someone else kill) another innocent human being in order to save his own life please explain to me why?

This test question will be graded on the use of common sense. One point will be deducted each time the words "exception" and "different" are used. :D
Click to expand...

1. and so are you
2. your presentation is a red-herring
3. The baby is not robbing a bank
4. refer to the end of my post
5. the baby isn't fighing in a war
6. see the end of my post

All you do, is make references to the "what if's", instead of dealing in what's actually happening.

Soldiers kill the enemy in a war; but they don't kill everyone in the war zone.
We execute some criminals; but not all criminals.

Therefore you are using the exceptions as your reason; but failing to see the reasons and therefore everything is OK.

By your analogy, everyone in a war zone should be shot and all prisoners should be exectued.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
1. and so are you
2. your presentation is a red-herring
3. The baby is not robbing a bank
4. refer to the end of my post
5. the baby isn't fighing in a war
6. see the end of my post

All you do, is make references to the "what if's", instead of dealing in what's actually happening.

Soldiers kill the enemy in a war; but they don't kill everyone in the war zone.
We execute some criminals; but not all criminals.

Therefore you are using the exceptions as your reason; but failing to see the reasons and therefore everything is OK.

By your analogy, everyone in a war zone should be shot and all prisoners should be exectued.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do make references to the "what if's". Like the balcony "what if" in post 365 and the father fighting for his son's/daughter's life "what if" in post 398.

It's called thinking things through which anti-abortionists are loath to do. Just outlaw abortion and we'll deal with the "what if's" as they arise while women would be subject to medical panels to see if they could get treatment if it might harm the fetus or some angry dude petitioning a court trying to save his son's or daughter's life arguing what kind of twisted society we live in that would allow the murder of an innocent human being because his nasty Ex might lose a kidney due to hypertension.

Twist and contort the law while one court rules one way and another court rules another way trying to decide just how much medical damage to a woman justifies the murder of another human being.

If people think the two sides are far apart now they ain't seen nothing yet if abortion is outlawed.
 
apple0154 said:
Yes, I do make references to the "what if's". Like the balcony "what if" in post 365 and the father fighting for his son's/daughter's life "what if" in post 398.

It's called thinking things through which anti-abortionists are loath to do. Just outlaw abortion and we'll deal with the "what if's" as they arise while women would be subject to medical panels to see if they could get treatment if it might harm the fetus or some angry dude petitioning a court trying to save his son's or daughter's life arguing what kind of twisted society we live in that would allow the murder of an innocent human being because his nasty Ex might lose a kidney due to hypertension.

Twist and contort the law while one court rules one way and another court rules another way trying to decide just how much medical damage to a woman justifies the murder of another human being.

If people think the two sides are far apart now they ain't seen nothing yet if abortion is outlawed.
Click to expand...

And just think; what if you could actually stop spinning things, for a short period of time.
WHAT IF................
 
apple0154 said:
You have a way or bolstering my argument. Thank-you!

I'm sure anti-abortionists do feel that thinking things through is spinning.
Click to expand...

:lolup:

The only thing that was "bolstered", was the fact that you can't stop spinning thigs.

I pity your lack of humanity and narrow mindedness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top