apple0154
MEOW
All I can say on that matter is if people think text-ing or talking on a phone is distracting they've never had sex while driving!
The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
All I can say on that matter is if people think text-ing or talking on a phone is distracting they've never had sex while driving!
How is that a parallel??? Would it be okay to force 10 old men to run until all but one died? Would it be okay to put 10 born babies through some sort of activity where +90% die?
Yes, I understand you don't want any compassion for her.
I insist on the mother being free to control her body and not being enslaved to something that is not yet a child.
You want exceptions that would allow the "killing of children" (that's what you actually believe they are) if the mother can prove she was a good little Christian. You advocate the regular killing of nine children just so one child might be born to a woman with fertility issues. You advocate a lot more disgusting shit.
Uh huh, slither away coward.
I have told you several times, I am not talking about unused embryos, moron.
Why don't you quit evading the other issues that have been brought and then we'll get into your other areas of ignorance. But I am talking about embryos that are doomed to die, not sperm.
The only thing I deny is that a right to life begins at conception. It is not yet human in the full sense of that word. A fertilized egg is alive (under some definitions) and is of human form. It's not what we mean by human life anymore than the brain dead, probably less so.
A sperm is alive (according to some definitions) and is of human form. Now, being a dumb fuck, you will misunderstand that and go into a tirade about how it's single cell, is not growing and claim I don't know "the facts" of science. But that last claim will not be true. I happen to know that science can give several different answers of what constitutes life. None of those definitions are absolute. There is no reason to apply any of them to the legal/medical/moral context to the exclusion of all others and if you are going to it needs to be consistent. Under the definition you are using, you can't say this brainless fertilized egg is alive and this guy with severe brain damage is not. There are plenty of other problems in your out of context use of the definition and all you guys do is ignore them.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
It is human. and a human. just not fully formed. Sorry. You lose again. Your arbitrary denials of "humanhood" are ineffective. It's not up to you define when humanity begines. It never ends actually.
It is up to me as it up to all of us. We can't just "bravely" stick our head up our asses, like pmp, and ignore the hard cases.
To pretend that a human life with full rights and of equal moral value to any other, is present at conception is silly and we DO NOT treat it as such in any other area. We do not mourn the death of fertilized eggs. We'll risk 10 of them just to get one ACTUAL baby. If a woman drinks too much the uterine wall might be unfit for implantation and her "children" will very likely die. If she did that with a born child or even the unborn that had grown sufficiently we would throw her ass in jail.
I got lots more...
You are the one arbitrarily denying humanness. You don't actually care outside of your rationalizations for controlling women.
So brain dead people are alive for legal/medical/moral purposes?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
You're insane. We can still have some abortions without denying human life. We definitely don't give it full rights if we allow it's death, but perhaps we should just accpept the morally blurry things in life as grey areas instead of trying to obscure science.
How is biological truth a rationalization for controlling women?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Do you see the pattern with stringfield? The legal reality is the only reality. He believes all words should change to be exactly what the legal system recognizes as reality. But the judicial view is only one statist viewpoint for reality.
apple0154
MEOW
Lesson #1. As you will notice I deliberately omitted links. The first step to educating oneself is to learn how to do research. (Hint: Google)
Zellweger Syndrome: Disease characteristics. (Excerpt) Peroxisome biogenesis disorders, Zellweger syndrome spectrum (PBD, ZSS) is a continuum of three phenotypes………..In the newborn period, affected children are hypotonic, feed poorly, and have distinctive facies, seizures, and liver cysts with hepatic dysfunction…………Infants with ZS are significantly impaired and typically die during the first year of life, usually having made no developmental progress. (End)
Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome: (Excerpt)Mortality rate is estimated at 34% in the first 2 years of life. However, because many affected children die before the anomaly is diagnosed or suspected, the mortality rate is underestimated. The usual cause of death is a heart defect, aspiration pneumonia, infection, or seizure. (End)
Sirenomelia http://www.indianpediatrics.net/feb2004/feb-196.htm
I know you like to learn from pictures so I thought I'd post pictures of this cute fella? gal?
Sanfilippo Syndrome: (Excerpt) Children with Sanfilippo are missing an essential enzyme that breaks down a complex body sugar called heparin sulfate. This sugar slowly builds in the brain, stopping normal development and causing hyperactivity, sleep disorders, loss of speech, dementia and typically death before adulthood. There is no cure, yet.
Propionic Acidemia: Mortality/Morbidity: (Excerpt)Surtees et al divided patients with propionic acidemia into 2 subgroups: Those with early-onset disease presenting in the first week of life and those with late-onset disease presenting after 6 weeks of age.1
The early-onset group was characterized by mental retardation and early death. The median survival of the early-onset group was 3 years. (End)
Meckel-Gruber Syndrome: (Excerpt) Improvements in ultrasonography have enabled prenatal diagnosis as early as 10 weeks' gestation……Mortality/Morbidity: Oligohydramnios that results from dysplastic kidneys leads to fetal pulmonary hypoplasia. Because the prognosis is grim, with death occurring in utero or shortly after birth, prenatal diagnosis has led to therapeutic abortion of many affected fetuses. The mortality rate is 100% with most fetuses surviving only a few days to weeks.
Schindler Disease: This should be an anti-abortionist “favorite”. The child slowly becomes mentally retarded while going blind and suffering seizures. Something to satisfy almost every sadistic anti-abortionist. (Excerpt)Type I is called the infantile type of Schindler Disease. Typically, normal mental and physical development occurs during the first months of life. Between approximately 8-15 months, there is a rapid and severe regression in skills. Individuals with infantile Schindler disease usually have severe mental retardation, blindness, and/or seizures. Death typically occurs within the first 3-4 years of life. (End)
MEB disease: (Excerpt) She had symptom onset at age 22 months; at age 30 years, she had severe mental retardation and seizures….(End)
Wow! What a great life. I bet she was happy to be born.
Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome: (Excerpt) The prognosis for individuals with LNS is poor. Death is usually due to renal failure in the first or second decade of life. (End) Another 4-star disease. Dead before twenty.
Joubert Syndrome: (Excerpt) The most common features of Joubert syndrome in infants include abnormally rapid breathing (hyperpnea), decreased muscle tone (hypotonia), jerky eye movements (oculomotor apraxia), mental retardation, and the inability to coordinate voluntary muscle movements (ataxia). Physical deformities may be present, such as extra fingers and toes (polydactyly), cleft lip or palate, and tongue abnormalities. Kidney and liver abnormalities can develop, and seizures may also occur…(End)
Perhaps I shouldn’t have included Joubert Syndrome. I know, many times while working on my classic car, I wished I had a couple of extra fingers to hold washers or bolts or a wrench.
Hydrolethalus syndrome: (Excerpt) Prognosis: Aside from an anecdotal survival of more than a few months, neonatal death is the rule. (End)
Even though this disease can be detected at 3 months if we follow the anti-abortionist belief it’s a human being we would compel the mother to carry the “child” until birth so she can watch it die. Do you think that would satisfy the anti-abortionist's sadistic lust, PmP?
We’ll end with one I’m sure will be another “favourite” of the anti-abortionists, Batten disease: Symptoms: (Excerpt) Early symptoms of the disorder usually appear around ages 4-10, with gradual onset of vision problems, or seizures. Early signs may be subtle personality and behavior changes, slow learning or regression, repetitive speech or echolalia, clumsiness, or stumbling. There may be slowing head growth in the infantile form, poor circulation in lower extremities (legs and feet), decreased body fat and muscle mass, curvature of the spine, hyperventilation and/or breath-holding spells, teeth grinding, and constipation.
Over time, affected children suffer mental impairment, worsening seizures, and progressive loss of sight, speech and motor skills. Eventually, children with Batten disease become blind, bedridden, and demented. (End)
You have to admit that’s a tough one to beat. One would certainly get their
"money's worth" allowing a fetus to develop resulting in a child being born with Batten disease. Picture the tears of joy streaming down the mother's face thanking the powers-that-be they forced her to bear a child as now she can look forward to it becoming blind, bedridden, and demented. What moral individual could even contemplate preventing such a scenario from unfolding??
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
apple0154
MEOW
Of course we can still have some abortions without denying human life. We can have slavery without denying they're human beings. They're just not AS HUMAN as the rest of us.
We can place people in concentration camps and even kill them, as well. It doesn't mean they're not human. It just means they're not AS HUMAN as we are.
The problem is people tried the "gray areas", the "morally blurry" areas, and other people didn't like it very much. In fact some were sought out and hung!
I'd say the lesson learned is if something is considered a human being we better not get into the gray areas or morally blurry areas because someone will come along and clear that picture up in a hurry.
No, dumb fuck. I think definitions are dependent on the context in which they are used and the user. I don't need for all scientist to accept the biologists definition of life or what the legal one is and should be. It does not matter that they do not agree.
You think that definitions are handed down by God or science as absolutes. They are not. Scientific definitions are for science. Different fields disagree on definitions, especially in the more complex concepts. Life is an extremely complex concept. Our understanding of it is incomplete. They are discovering life now where they never thought it could exists and there is no universal scientific definition of life.
That does not mean you should not form a rigorous definition within context. It just means the definition of flock to a preacher is different than that of a bird watcher or shepherd. The difference does not matter, because flock just means group. Life is not so easily defined, but there is no reason that the legal/medical/moral definition must agree with ONE field of science's definition anymore than the preacher must agree with the birdwatcher.
The legal definition must fit the realities of human life, the source/need of our rights and must consider the choices we are faced with. It cannot ignore the harsh realities of some of those choices. It must apply to all cases, generally, and where there are needs for an exception or gray area, there is a need for a legal framework to settle disputes. In definitions of life that science uses there are gray areas and hard cases on which the definition does not work. They can ignore the hard cases, because nobody's life/liberty depends on it. In the legal/medical/moral fields, we cannot.
Pregnancy comes with very real risks to the mother's life and body. It's not up to pmp to decide the risks that are acceptable. Fuck him and the Pharisees. He has shown that his concern is adherence with his ignorant faith. It has nothing to do with the important parties, the mother and the developing life. It has to do with his sick desire to punish.
Last edited:
ASSHAT, please read and understand, YOU ARE A MORON. No one is trying to obscure science. Science does not tell me whether a woman should have the right to kill a brainless lump of cells that resulted from sex, consensual or otherwise. Shake that magic 8-ball all you like, it does not answer. As I told IDiot, science alone in an ethical argument is unarmed.
We are not arguing about what the biological definition of life is or should be. But you know what it is? It's the definition MOST... not all... MOST biologists use and agree upon. We are talking about what the LEGAL/MEDICAL/MORAL definition of life is or should be. Fuck the biologists, they can't agree among themselves on a definition. Why should the law reflect there definition when it is unworkable in this context?
And you are just an idiot pawn that has been confused by the propaganda of theocrats, who are never concerned with what science says, except now. Sure... They don't care about the science anymore than they care about the unborn. They are looking to punish the filthy whore and their reasoning of the consequences starts and ends there.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
And our moral should be in line with science, not opposed to them. Do you believe men and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Something is alive or it's dead. It is absolute.
I am not arguing biological definitions, but legal ones.
It is not absolute. Brain dead, dead or alive? Sperm, dead or alive? An apple dead or alive? Viruses, dead or alive? The constitution, dead or alive?
Which of those is relevant to the question we are discussing, which is a proper legal definition of life or when the right to life is present?
You don't understand the importance of context or even how definitions are formed. You are a complete and total moron.
You guys should do what you do on global warming and start listening to the few outlying biologists who disagree with the consensus definition of life. "The science is not settled!," you could argue... lol
Then you could pretend you are "skeptics" instead of just a bunch of morons desperately grasping at whatever straw you can find. And of course, you do. The typical pro-lifer (believer in God) certainly doesn't except all of what biology has to say about life, for instance the origins of life. And that is an issue within the proper context. Just a bunch of IDiots, hypmpocrites and nAHZis trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Then you could pretend you are "skeptics" instead of just a bunch of morons desperately grasping at whatever straw you can find. And of course, you do. The typical pro-lifer (believer in God) certainly doesn't except all of what biology has to say about life, for instance the origins of life. And that is an issue within the proper context. Just a bunch of IDiots, hypmpocrites and nAHZis trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Last edited:
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Im arguing they should be congruent, not at odds. You need to whitewash death so society can maintain it's basic structure of evil.
Last edited:
There is no need for that, but....
Okay, then, no abortions for the raped, a woman that might lose a kidney, incest, a woman carrying a "child" who did not develop a brain, a "child" who is certain to live a short and miserable life, no fertility treatments, keep that brain dead guy plugged in and a host of other absurd consequences from your irrational attempt to force this definition to cut across its useful context.
Again, not all biologists agree and most biologists disagree with definitions used in other fields of science. Why should an arbitrary definition from science be expected to work in this context when it fails in other scientific contexts? You are insane. You are just too stupid to know it.
Last edited: