The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

RStringfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said we can have abortions without pretending the child isn't human or isn't alive, or is lumber or whatever tripe you keep spewing on about.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I didn't say that. I said we can have abortions without pretending the child isn't human or isn't alive, or is lumber or whatever tripe you keep spewing on about.
Click to expand...

Not if we insist that at conception, the right to life is present. AGAIN SINCE YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE FIRST 1000 TIMES! I AM NOT ARGUING OVER A BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF LIFE OR WHEN IT BEGINS, YOU FUCKING MORON.

I am discussing when the right to life is present or when life begins and ends in the legal/medical/moral context.

You are fucking dense and don't get it. You might glimpse it for a second but your unbelievable stupidity will inevitably lead you to confuse yourself all over again.
 
RStringfield said:
Not if we insist that at conception, the right to life is present. AGAIN SINCE YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND THE FIRST 1000 TIMES! I AM NOT ARGUING OVER A BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF LIFE OR WHEN IT BEGINS, YOU FUCKING MORON.

I am discussing when the right to life is present or when life begins and ends in the legal/medical/moral context.

You are fucking dense and don't get it. You might glimpse it for a second but your unbelievable stupidity will inevitably lead you to confuse yourself all over again.
Click to expand...

And i am saying there should not be two contexts. Why do you need morality to differ from science?
 
AssHatZombie said:
And i am saying there should not be two contexts. Why do you need morality to differ from science?
Click to expand...

I already told you moron. Trying to use the consensus biology definition in this context is as stupid as trying to force it's use in the context of other sciences. There is no one scientific definition of life, dumb fuck. Why, because one definition does not work in all contexts. There is no one biological definition of life. Why, because even within one context the definition is imperfect and describes some things as life that are not considered life and fails to describe some things that are considered life as life.

The biological definition is, clearly, not what society means by life that is worthy of rights or that has moral value. A chicken fit's the biological definition of life. It's not human, yeah, yeah... Now tell us about the brain dead and the spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs that no one mourns. The biological definition does not work in this context, and that is obvious.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And i am saying there should not be two contexts. Why do you need morality to differ from science?
Click to expand...

and....

lol

There should not be two contexts....:palm: There are are way more than two contexts, you fucking idiot.

You might as well say that reality should bend to your will.
 
RStringfield said:
I already told you moron. Trying to use the consensus biology definition in this context is as stupid as trying to force it's use in the context of other sciences. There is no one scientific definition of life, dumb fuck. Why, because one definition does not work in all contexts. There is no one biological definition of life. Why, because even within one context the definition is imperfect and describes some things as life that are not considered life and fails to describe some things that are considered life as life.

The biological definition is, clearly, not what society means by life that is worthy of rights or that has moral value. A chicken fit's the biological definition of life. It's not human, yeah, yeah... Now tell us about the brain dead and the spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs that no one mourns. The biological definition does not work in this context, and that is obvious.
Click to expand...

The scientific definition of life is not as varied as you portray. And you defeated yourself with your new chicken life straw man. Im glad you see your own idiocy and nullify your own input.

Stringfield is covered in his own man goo.
 
RStringfield said:
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?
Click to expand...
??...no one "forces" fertilized eggs to run anywhere......in the natural course of events some fertilized eggs die, in the natural course of events some old men die......now, someone takes action and kills a fertilized egg.....the obvious parallel is, someone takes action and kills an old man......you're trying to equate a person forcing ten old men to run with no one forcing anyone to do anything.....
 
RStringfield said:
if the mother can prove she was a good little Christian.
Click to expand...

the height of dumbfuckery is to pretend that my views on abortion key on the religion of the mother......you've just demonstrated a total lack of comprehension, with little hope you can reclaim any basis for credibility.....
 
RStringfield said:
I have told you several times, I am not talking about unused embryos, moron.
Click to expand...
then you're talking about nothing.....who else are murdered?......are you out there stalking women who have had sex, killing their fertilized eggs before they attach to the uterine wall?.....is someone else?......are you calling the natural process of reproduction, abortion?......what an idiot you must be.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
??...no one "forces" fertilized eggs to run anywhere......in the natural course of events some fertilized eggs die, in the natural course of events some old men die......now, someone takes action and kills a fertilized egg.....the obvious parallel is, someone takes action and kills an old man......you're trying to equate a person forcing ten old men to run with no one forcing anyone to do anything.....
Click to expand...

You are so weak and pathetic. Get your head out of your ass. Let's put it this way, the fertilized are not just "left alone" in ivf. They are sent into hostile territory where it is known that many will die. That's okay but a woman taking a pill to make her body hostile to fertilized eggs is not.

If the fertilized egg is alive, like a baby, then we have a duty to protect it like a baby. We could not be justified in sending it into known danger, whether we were cheering for the "baby" or not. You are basically saying that intentions or thoughts make one criminal and the other legal.
 
RStringfield said:
I am not arguing biological definitions, but legal ones.
Click to expand...

there are no legal definitions for the beginning of life, only for ending....thus we have no options besides biological ones.....if we DID use the legal definition for "ending" as the one for "beginning" you would still lose....the brain activity that warrants a conclusion of "alive" at the end of life is present in the embryo before most women are even aware they are pregnant.....
 
RStringfield said:
You are so weak and pathetic. Get your head out of your ass. Let's put it this way, the fertilized are not just "left alone" in ivf. They are sent into hostile territory where it is known that many will die. That's okay but a woman taking a pill to make her body hostile to fertilized eggs is not.

If the fertilized egg is alive, like a baby, then we have a duty to protect it like a baby. We could not be justified in sending it into known danger, whether we were cheering for the "baby" or not. You are basically saying that intentions or thoughts make one criminal and the other legal.
Click to expand...

dude, if that's all your hanging your hat on, you aren't even worth responding to....an in vitro fertilization involves a fertilized egg, transplanted surgically into the womb.....it has a higher chance of viability than any egg fertilized "in the hostile territory" of a natural pregnancy....

how can you compare the actions of a medical team committed to creating a viable pregnancy with the actions of an abortionist committed to crushing a life that already exists......yeah, I will freely and openly say that intention makes one a legal act and one an act which, in a civilized world, ought to be criminal.....how could you view it otherwise?.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude, if that's all your hanging your hat on, you aren't even worth responding to....an in vitro fertilization involves a fertilized egg, transplanted surgically into the womb.....it has a higher chance of viability than any egg fertilized "in the hostile territory" of a natural pregnancy....
Click to expand...

10% which is a high estimate. It's higher than that in the natural process.

PostmodernProphet said:
how can you compare the actions of a medical team committed to creating a viable pregnancy with the actions of an abortionist committed to crushing a life that already exists......yeah, I will freely and openly say that intention makes one a legal act and one an act which, in a civilized world, ought to be criminal.....how could you view it otherwise?.......
Click to expand...

How could you view unnecessarily endangering a "child" as ethically acceptable? How is it anymore acceptable than an abortion pill? It might not be the same as active abortion, in a doctor assisted abortion, but if one is murder then the other is at least negligent homicide.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there are no legal definitions for the beginning of life, only for ending....thus we have no options besides biological ones.....if we DID use the legal definition for "ending" as the one for "beginning" you would still lose....the brain activity that warrants a conclusion of "alive" at the end of life is present in the embryo before most women are even aware they are pregnant.....
Click to expand...

Not at fertilization.
 
RStringfield said:
10% which is a high estimate. It's higher than that in the natural process.
Click to expand...

you're dealing with problem pregnancy.....the statistics for natural pregnancy are going to include all women for who pregnancy is not a problem.....


How could you view unnecessarily endangering a "child" as ethically acceptable? How is it anymore acceptable than an abortion pill? It might not be the same as active abortion, in a doctor assisted abortion, but if one is murder then the other is at least negligent homicide.
Click to expand...

because it isn't an act of "endangering a child", any more than open heart surgery is an act of "endangering a heart patient"......it is a medical procedure that is NOT designed to kill.......now, if the doctor acts negligently during the process he may be guilty of negligent homicide, but certainly not if he acts in the way he ought......on the other hand, a negligent abortionist would be charged if the child lived....:pke:
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you're dealing with problem pregnancy.....the statistics for natural pregnancy are going to include all women for who pregnancy is not a problem.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, and? If life begins at conception should these barren women even be allowed to try knowing that many "babies" will die? You don't consider that question only because it is not morally convenient. The woman who can achieve a viable pregnancy is a filthy murdering whore while the woman that hopes to get pregnant but can't is guilty of no sin, even though her actions and those of the doctor are highly likely to result in the death of a "baby." It's not really a "baby" then to you is it. It's a potential "baby."

because it isn't an act of "endangering a child", any more than open heart surgery is an act of "endangering a heart patient"......it is a medical procedure that is NOT designed to kill.......now, if the doctor acts negligently during the process he may be guilty of negligent homicide, but certainly not if he acts in the way he ought......on the other hand, a negligent abortionist would be charged if the child lived....:pke:
Click to expand...

It most certainly endangers the "child." Are you kidding, 9/10 will die, and that is at the best of odds.

It is not like open heart surgery. Open heart surgery is performed to save a life. Here, you claim, we are creating a full moral agent with equal rights of any other human being and immediately putting into a situation where it is very likely to die.

Of course, the truth is that the idea that those fertilized eggs is morally equivalent to a baby is ridiculous and there is no reason to believe it, as you do. But the moral and logical results of that ignorant position would make ivf as barbaric as abortion. There is no escaping that other than to acknowledge that they are not "babies." They simply are not as morally valuable as a real baby and so it's okay to try in the hopes of creating a baby.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top