"We keep marrying other species and ethnics " - Fox News Host

I see that no one has really broached the rights of the woman involved yet.

It's like an afterthought w/ the pro-lifers...
 
Onceler said:
I see that no one has really broached the rights of the woman involved yet.

It's like an afterthought w/ the pro-lifers...
Click to expand...

/shrugs....women have all sorts of rights.....I just don't agree that killing their children ought to be one of them.....are you ready to acknowledge that the rights of the children is less than an afterthought, a non-thought, w/ the pro-baby killers?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
get real.....for a hundred years before Roe v Wade we had no trouble understanding that the unborn children were human beings and that abortions could be performed to save the life of the mother....it isn't suddenly complicated now except for the fact that liberals are committed to the concept of freely killing them.....your position is the aberration and it is simply solved by eliminating the bad idea......
Click to expand...

It's not that it's complicated. It's that people have used common sense. If embryos/fetuses are human beings there can be no logical justification to kill them just because a woman has a defective body. And it's just as illogical to expect a woman to suffer grave damage by being forced to continue a pregnancy.

That's what I mean by thinking it through. It's fine to say embryos/fetuses are human beings but when we start to apply that rationale things start to fall apart as I've shown in numerous posts.

In the past people simply accepted authority, regardless. People never questioned things like they do today.

Society has advanced. Now people think things through. The days of people in authority simply passing laws and expecting the population to conform are quickly coming to an end. A position has to be logical. Lawmakers are now required to defend their reasoning. That's when/where the courts enter the picture.

That's where so-called activist judges enter the picture. They are judges who think things through and lawmakers are realizing that.
 
apple0154 said:
It's not that it's complicated. It's that people have used common sense. If embryos/fetuses are human beings there can be no logical justification to kill them just because a woman has a defective body. And it's just as illogical to expect a woman to suffer grave damage by being forced to continue a pregnancy.

That's what I mean by thinking it through. It's fine to say embryos/fetuses are human beings but when we start to apply that rationale things start to fall apart as I've shown in numerous posts.

In the past people simply accepted authority, regardless. People never questioned things like they do today.

Society has advanced. Now people think things through. The days of people in authority simply passing laws and expecting the population to conform are quickly coming to an end. A position has to be logical. Lawmakers are now required to defend their reasoning. That's when/where the courts enter the picture.

That's where so-called activist judges enter the picture. They are judges who think things through and lawmakers are realizing that.
Click to expand...


You keep inferring that someone is mistakenly calling fetuses and embryos human beings, and we've already established what biological fact says they are. This is not up for debate, it is simply NOT a matter of opinion. A human fetus or embryo, is a human life.... end of discussion on that. Unless you can provide some kind of biological evidence that the life form is not human, or it's not living, then you have to accept it is indeed a human life. Is this sinking in? We can't 'debate' something that isn't debatable! You continue to remain in DENIAL of what is being done here, you want to think a fetus or embryo is something besides what biology tells us it is.

Judges and courts have often gotten things wrong. In the 1800's, black people were not considered "persons" by the courts, they were considered "property" and given NO constitutional rights. Was that right? Neither is this false claim of "a woman's right to choose." A woman shouldn't have the right to choose to kill other human beings. We give that right to very few people in very rare circumstances.
 
apple0154 said:
It's not that it's complicated. It's that people have used common sense.
Click to expand...
good lord...killing unborn children is about as far removed from common sense as you can get.....

If embryos/fetuses are human beings there can be no logical justification to kill them just because a woman has a defective body.
Click to expand...

/sigh....of course there's a logical justification....why wouldn't saving the life of the mother be a logical justification?.....

Society has advanced.
Click to expand...

ah, we've "progressed" to the stage of killing our children.....must be evolution at work.....

just out of curiosity, are you blond?.....
 
Dixie said:
You keep inferring that someone is mistakenly calling fetuses and embryos human beings, and we've already established what biological fact says they are. This is not up for debate, it is simply NOT a matter of opinion. A human fetus or embryo, is a human life.... end of discussion on that. Unless you can provide some kind of biological evidence that the life form is not human, or it's not living, then you have to accept it is indeed a human life. Is this sinking in? We can't 'debate' something that isn't debatable! You continue to remain in DENIAL of what is being done here, you want to think a fetus or embryo is something besides what biology tells us it is.

Judges and courts have often gotten things wrong. In the 1800's, black people were not considered "persons" by the courts, they were considered "property" and given NO constitutional rights. Was that right? Neither is this false claim of "a woman's right to choose." A woman shouldn't have the right to choose to kill other human beings. We give that right to very few people in very rare circumstances.
Click to expand...

Apple seems to believe that if you take the fertilized egg from a human and put it in a chicken, that you'll get breakfast.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Apple seems to believe that if you take the fertilized egg from a human and put it in a chicken, that you'll get breakfast.
Click to expand...

Or at best, he and others like him, think this is a subjective opinion we can have... like we can legitimately have the opinion a tree isn't a tree or an apple is an orange. Biological facts are NOT opinions, there is no debate about what a fetus and embryo are, they are human life. This can't be debated and can't be refuted. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....and?.....I'm not basing my position on the accessibility of "soul".....it's simply an observable scientific truth that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between an unborn child and a birthed one, and therefore, denying rights to one that are afforded to the other is arbitrary and capricious.....
Click to expand...

and I believe it is the soul that distinquishes humans from other animals...


So did St Thomas Aquinas.

a "soul-less human being" is a non sequitur
 
Dixie said:
Or at best, he and others like him, think this is a subjective opinion we can have... like we can legitimately have the opinion a tree isn't a tree or an apple is an orange. Biological facts are NOT opinions, there is no debate about what a fetus and embryo are, they are human life. This can't be debated and can't be refuted. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact!
Click to expand...

Weren't you arguing on the evolution/genesis thread that there is no such thing as a conclusive scientific fact?

I'll dig it up; man, you really could debate with yourself all day...
 
Found it; I just bumped your other thread, Dix. Here's your exact quote:

"Science has never determined a single thing as conclusive fact.

That's a fact!"

LOL - like, a lot...
 
"This can't be debated and can't be refuted. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact! "

Versus

"Science has never determined a single thing as conclusive fact.

That's a fact!"
 
Onceler said:
"This can't be debated and can't be refuted. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact! "

Versus

"Science has never determined a single thing as conclusive fact.

That's a fact!"
Click to expand...

Science doesn't conclude facts. However, branches of science do sometimes use probability to draw reasonable conclusion. These are often called laws, like the law of gravity, or principles, like the principle of combustion. In cases where a clear conclusion can't be made, it is called a theory.

Now you can pretend you have made some brilliant point or shown some glaring contradiction, but you are a retarded idiot who apparently doesn't even comprehend the details of the debate. A living human organism can't be anything other than what it is. This defies logic, therefore, we can conclude with most reasonable certainty, an embryo and fetus are human life, and that is a biological fact which can't be disputed.
 
C'mon, Dix!

I was really looking forward to how you were going to spin that rather glaring contradiction. But you disappointed me; you just mailed it in.

What a letdown...
 
maineman said:
and I believe it is the soul that distinquishes humans from other animals...


So did St Thomas Aquinas.

a "soul-less human being" is a non sequitur
Click to expand...

so, what is your alternative.....God emails the souls down at the moment of birth.....or is the soul imparted by means of the doctor's slap on the butt.....do incubator babies have to wait till they are off oxygen to get their souls?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top