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

PostmodernProphet said:
you see....that's the point I was making about your argument with Dixie.....you have lost this argument everywhichway, including inside out, but because you apparently won an argument with him once before on another issue, you somehow think you won this one.....

in this particular case you haven't even raised a point that could survive two posts......face it....it is scientific fact that the unborn as just as much a human being as the born....and you are denying their rights in an arbitrary and capricious manner.....
Click to expand...

Nah - it's not as clear or black & white as you keep stating.

I've lost the argument "inside out" - that's cute, but meaningless. Sorry, but it's not enough to just keep saying something with a false sense of conviction. "A fetus is a human...you can't dispute it...a fetus is a human...you can't dispute it."

You lose. And guess what? Abortion is legal, and likely always will be.

Ha ha.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I find it fascinating how, when you raise a legitimate argument to a liberal, he is immediately forced to fall back on insults.....as if somehow he needs to grasp for something to restore his damaged sense of self-superiority before it dribbles through his fingers into the urinal......why do my posts frighten you?......
Click to expand...

your post don't frighten me they make me laugh in your face. 1. I now don't believe for a second a tool like you could be a lawyer. you telling a scientist what is necessary is not legitimate it's comical.
I do believe you studied the comic book bible in college though. you sound like someone willing to waste a collosile amount of time.
 
Onceler said:
It's incredibly funny that you bumped that again, as though it is some sort of insightful, never-thought-of-before question, that demands to be addressed.

It's 3rd grade.
Click to expand...

um.....had not seen YOUR answer before, and given your above answer, the question was indeed on point and good....why in the world you had to come back like a 1st grader and give a stupid insult only proves you're immature

and i only talk about the stalker stuff when all you do is insult all the time....so kindly get your facts straight...and dude, i'm messin with you, you give as good as you get so don't get your panties in a bunch because i'm better at than you :)
 
Onceler said:
"In order for you to exist now, you made it through the stage where you were attached to your mother's body, you couldn't have survived otherwise."

That is true; however, if my mother had decided to terminate her pregnancy with the legal timeframe, she would not have been murdering me. Because I wasn't born yet.
Click to expand...

do you believe the law is always right?
 
Yurt said:
do you believe the law is always right?
Click to expand...

No, I don't, and I try not to rely on that argument.

However, it does hold some weight in the context of this discussion. I just don't like it when anyone tries to present this issue as completely black & white, cut & dry, on either side. It isn't; it's a very difficult issue.

The fact that there is such widespread disagreement on it among scholars, judges, politicians & pretty much everyone backs that up, which is why I bring up the law, but if I relied solely on it being law for whatever argument I am making, it would be weak.
 
Onceler said:
No, I don't, and I try not to rely on that argument.

However, it does hold some weight in the context of this discussion. I just don't like it when anyone tries to present this issue as completely black & white, cut & dry, on either side. It isn't; it's a very difficult issue.

The fact that there is such widespread disagreement on it among scholars, judges, politicians & pretty much everyone backs that up, which is why I bring up the law, but if I relied solely on it being law for whatever argument I am making, it would be weak.
Click to expand...

fair enough....and i agree, it isn't a simple cut and dry issue
 
Onceler said:
"In order for you to exist now, you made it through the stage where you were attached to your mother's body, you couldn't have survived otherwise."

That is true; however, if my mother had decided to terminate her pregnancy with the legal timeframe, she would not have been murdering me. Because I wasn't born yet.
Click to expand...

No, she would have been killing you just the same. Murder being a legal term which points a finger of "guilt" at the person doing the killing. Removing legal responsibility is a mere sleight of hand to make people feel its OK to kill another human being at its most vulnerable stage of "LIFE". Like saying black human beings were only 3/4 human so we could enslave, beat, torture, rape and mutilate them at our whim without any legal consequences of guilt. See how convenient legalese can be?
 
Topspin said:
your post don't frighten me they make me laugh in your face. 1. I now don't believe for a second a tool like you could be a lawyer. you telling a scientist what is necessary is not legitimate it's comical.
I do believe you studied the comic book bible in college though. you sound like someone willing to waste a collosile amount of time.
Click to expand...

TS is following his instructions......"when unable to respond to an argument, paste these handy, ready-made insults immediately following the letters [/QUOTE]"........
 
Onceler said:
Dixie, your iron-clad claim to be on the side of "facts" and "conclusive evidence" has already been shot to hell, by you.

This issue is almost nothing but gray; you're one of the extremists I was referring to previously who try in vain to distill it down to simple, simplistic black & white terms. It is not, and likely will never be.
Click to expand...
The issue really isn't all that gray.

Saying that a human fetus is a human life is an observable natural fact, something that is definitely found in science. It isn't difficult to observe if it is alive, and to find out that every human fetus becomes at least one human, sometimes more if it is allowed to continue. You act as if there is some actual debate among scientists as to whether this is human life. There isn't. The only debate lies in the ever more philosophical "personhood", and for many in this thread the paranormal, the "soul".

The problem is the way he expressed it and then people attempting to use the expression in a way that tries to make him look foolish.

Here is a site where you can see what I am talking about:

http://www.biocab.org/Science.html

Observable natural facts are part of what is needed in order to create a Theory.
 
Nah; the only people who see it as black & white are on the extremes of the issue.

How do we define human-ness? At what point does the fetus go from being a clump of cells to something is distinctly human? Many arguments are made about inevitability, but that doesn't address what a fetus actually is at any given stage. Brain development is just one small example; can something that has not developed a functioning brain YET (spare me the strawmen about comatose women & encephalitis) be considered a fully functional human with full rights?

It's gray; it isn't black & white. The more people claim certainty, the weaker their position actually is.
 
Onceler said:
Nah; the only people who see it as black & white are on the extremes of the issue.

How do we define human-ness? At what point does the fetus go from being a clump of cells to something is distinctly human? Many arguments are made about inevitability, but that doesn't address what a fetus actually is at any given stage. Brain development is just one small example; can something that has not developed a functioning brain YET (spare me the strawmen about comatose women & encephalitis) be considered a fully functional human with full rights?

It's gray; it isn't black & white. The more people claim certainty, the weaker their position actually is.
Click to expand...
Its not a straw man to equate your argument with killing of patients who have lost a certain level of brain activity due to old age, accident or disease. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Its not a straw man to equate your argument with killing of patients who have lost a certain level of brain activity due to old age, accident or disease. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Yep; it is, shruggles. I'm talking about pre-development stages. You are talking about post-development stages.
 
Onceler said:
Yep; it is, shruggles. I'm talking about pre-development stages. You are talking about post-development stages.
Click to expand...
Earlier you were talking about brain function, now you add this caveat. The only difference is the order of events. Why would that make any difference?
 
Southern Man said:
Earlier you were talking about brain function, now you add this caveat. The only difference is the order of events. Why would that make any difference?
Click to expand...

I added nothing. If you will re-read that post, I was very clear to say "YET".

It is an important distinction.
 
Onceler said:
I added nothing. If you will re-read that post, I was very clear to say "YET".

It is an important distinction.
Click to expand...
I don't see how other than as an emotional response.

If brain cell counts make one human, then the loss of that count would then make one not...
 
Damocles said:
I don't see how other than as an emotional response.

If brain cell counts make one human, then the loss of that count would then make one not...
Click to expand...

Whenever people talk about the fetus, it's in terms of potential; it is not in terms of fully realized.

It's interesting you bring up emotionalism. To me, this is one area where emotional appeals lie almost strictly with one side, with claims of liberals wanting to murder babies, and kill those on life support, and just kill, kill, kill....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top