Attacking Hyde

Dungheap said:
Well, I just want us all to be clear that, in your view, an unimplanted fertilized egg is the same thing as a five year old child. Because that's really smart . . .
Click to expand...

I think it goes beyond intelligence. This is a position that simply is not sane. I think people who believe this are suffering from mental illness and this belief is only one symptom. Most of them are probably ill enough to be institutionalized.
 
Dungheap said:
Well, I just want us all to be clear that, in your view, an unimplanted fertilized egg is the same thing as a five year old child. Because that's really smart . . .
Click to expand...

No, it is not. Nor is a five year old child the same as a ten year old child. Nor is a 10 year old child the same as a 18 year old child.

Any other straw men today?
 
Darla said:
I think it goes beyond intelligence. This is a position that simply is not sane. I think people who believe this are suffering from mental illness and this belief is only one symptom. Most of them are probably ill enough to be institutionalized.
Click to expand...

LMAO... amazing how you can knock down his little straw man. Shocking how easy it was.
 
annata said:
without getting into the endless abortion 'debate' - it seems that reproductive health, including abortion is both legal and necessary for women.

Why single out Medicade recieving women for no aid? It would appear the poorest need the most help.

To deny Medicade receiving women abortion funding, is wrong in that it allows women whom are poor, (in all probability) a more difficult time to care for children to be forced into childbirth.

It's discriminatory, and poor policy, both.
Click to expand...

Well said, and gets us back on topic.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, you truly are comical with your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Just because some people *choose* to redefine biological and legal terms and invest emotion in something that is none of their business, it still does not make it true or any of their business. "Oh unborn babies are our business!" No. They're not.

If you want to manufacture some great tragic fetal holocaust, feel free. It's like conspiracy theorists or people who believe in creationism. You can hand out the facts til the cows come home and they will cling to what they need to cling to.

This is another one of those areas that you are free to practice personally based on your own beliefs...and respect other peoples' rights and choices. "Potential" life does not trump a woman's rights.

In case this is needed: "potential" means might continue to develop and be born...and might not.
 
Lorca said:
Just because some people *choose* to redefine biological and legal terms and invest emotion in something that is none of their business, it still does not make it true or any of their business. "Oh unborn babies are our business!" No. They're not.

If you want to manufacture some great tragic fetal holocaust, feel free. It's like conspiracy theorists or people who believe in creationism. You can hand out the facts til the cows come home and they will cling to what they need to cling to.
Click to expand...

The above is truly comical. The 'emotion' is coming from those who pretend a life is not a life so that they can choose to kill said life. The reason is on the side of those that understand genetics. No one is redefining genetics. Once the egg cell is fertilized it is a unique human life. That is not questionable. If the egg implants in the uterus, it will continue to grow and develop. It therefore must be alive.

The debate is about whether or not that unborn child deserves human rights protections. The most basic, its right to LIFE. You can choose either side of the argument and have a legitimate debate. But pretending it is not a unique human life is nothing short of absurd.

This is another one of those areas that you are free to practice personally based on your own beliefs...and respect other peoples' rights and choices. "Potential" life does not trump a woman's rights.
Click to expand...

The above is the type of stupidity that makes your side look so bad. It is not a 'potential' life. It is either alive or dead. If dead, nothing to discuss. If alive, then it is a life. A woman has the right to life as does the child. Therefore if her life is in danger, she certainly then would have the right to choose her life over that of her childs if she desires. But her convenience and desire to avoid personal responsibility for her actions do not and should not trump the childs right to life.

In case this is needed: "potential" means might continue to develop and be born...and might not.
Click to expand...

You could say the exact same thing about any child, they 'might' continue to develop or they might not. How far down that slope do you want to go?
 
Lorca said:
Just because some people *choose* to redefine biological and legal terms and invest emotion in something that is none of their business, it still does not make it true or any of their business. "Oh unborn babies are our business!" No. They're not.

If you want to manufacture some great tragic fetal holocaust, feel free. It's like conspiracy theorists or people who believe in creationism. You can hand out the facts til the cows come home and they will cling to what they need to cling to.

This is another one of those areas that you are free to practice personally based on your own beliefs...and respect other peoples' rights and choices. "Potential" life does not trump a woman's rights.

In case this is needed: "potential" means might continue to develop and be born...and might not.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Sorry SF, most of your statements and assumptions arent correct. Life is not black and white. You can slice and dice it all you want (no pun intended) and that's YOUR right as an individual but your emotional investment (in something that does not concern you) is not something you have the right to attempt to impose on others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top