Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 05-09-2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Impress me, Doc - find the flaw in what I just said.

Betcha can't.

Find the flaw?! Hell, I can't even find the point...

Are you arguing for infants' voting rights or against women boasting of having orgasms during abortions?

yguy · 05-09-2003, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Originally spewed by yguy:
What rights the King may grant, he may likewise revoke.

Flowers sure are pretty this time of year....

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Originally posted by yguy
Impress me, Doc - find the flaw in what I just said.

Betcha can't.
Find the flaw?! Hell, I can't even find the point...

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
You still haven't addressed this question, yguy; and now I must ask, do only dictators grant legal priveleges or just legal rights?

When you can see the point, perhaps you and I can intelligently discuss the question. Not before.

Invader Tak · 05-09-2003, 09:29 AM

Quote:

This particular abortion-rights activist tried to legitimize women who enjoy abortions. That is a fact, though I cannot provide independent confirmation.

You can't provide independent confirmation? No shit.

Can you mention a name? Who was this monster feminist who tried to legitimize women enjoying abortions? What talk show was she on?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Until then, I'm calling it bullshit. The same bullshit I see proclaimed in *every* abortion argument I've seen.

yguy · 05-09-2003, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Invader Tak
[B]Can you mention a name? Who was this monster feminist who tried to legitimize women enjoying abortions? What talk show was she on?

It was a local show, so even if I remembered the name from 10+ years ago, it would likely not ring any bells with anyone.

Quote:

Until then, I'm calling it bullshit.

That is your perogative.

Quote:

The same bullshit I see proclaimed in *every* abortion argument I've seen.

Perhaps you'd care to address the other 99% of what I've said regarding abortion here and find fault with my reasoning.

Invader Tak · 05-09-2003, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
[B]It was a local show, so even if I remembered the name from 10+ years ago, it would likely not ring any bells with anyone.

Of course you don't remember any names. Because it's bullshit.

Quote:

Perhaps you'd care to address the other 99% of what I've said regarding abortion here and find fault with my reasoning.

Nope, I really don't care about your reasoning. I'm just glad that you and your ilk haven't won (yet). I only felt the need to pipe up when the urban legends started to pop up.

Which one are you going to use next? The doctor who aborted the 8 month fetus and when was found to be still alive, strangled it? Aborted embryos and fetuses used in cosmetic products?

long winded fool · 05-09-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KitKit
your whole argument is based on the guilt of the person committing the "crime" (crime in your opinion, obviously not in mine). that was not the point i was trying to make at all.

the case i was making was for the unborn child. it isn't fair to them to bring them into a miserable situation. what kind of monster do you create by bringing a child into a loveless environment? which is worse? i suppose that can never be proved. you just have to go on instinct on that one. do you feel it is worse to abort an unborn fetus or to bring a child into a miserable existence all the while creating a hateful, miserable person?

and as far as when a fetus becomes a human... well that will probably never be proved either. but my opinion is that if it's still inside my body then it is still a part of me & i can do whatever i want with it. i can hear the outrage already. scream at me all you want, but since you can't prove otherwise & may never be able to prove otherwise then it's a mute point. everyhing that everyone has said in this thread is based on someones opinion of the situtation, none of it is based on facts proven by the scientific method.

we can go round & round in this conversation till the end of time, but until you convince me that it is a life before it is born we are going to end up right back where we were.

But it is alive before it is born. How can it not be a life? If the fetus is a merely a part of a woman, then pregnant women have four arms, four legs, two heads, two brains, two hearts, two nervous systems, and either two vaginas or both a vagina and a penis. Not to mention two completely different genetic codes. Cloning a piece of the woman makes a replica of the woman. Cloning a piece of the fetus does not make a replica of the woman. A fetus is not part of a woman. It is provably a scientifically seperate and individual member of the human species. Killing the fetus is not amputation. It is destruction of a human life, by definition.

I agree that it is not fair to bring a child into a miserable environment. I applaud anyone who takes measures to ensure this doesn't happen. I also label the destruction of a human being for the sake of another's convenience a horrible crime, legal though it may be, Dr. Rick, so long as you discriminate against a minority when you do. (Indeed, killing a human being can never be in the best interest of the human being, therefore abortion cannot be said to have the welfare of the child in mind. It must solely have human beings who do not wish the child to be born in mind.) Since we can't agree that a fetus is a human being, KitKit, maybe you could tell us what you think constitutes a human being? I've already told you what I think constitutes a human being. I looked up "human being" in the dictionary and assumed that was what a human being is. I can think nothing more objective and unbiased than that. For what reason, besides that it refutes your argument, should we use a definition other than the accepted scientific definition?

long winded fool · 05-09-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
Fetuses don't have rights like persons do, even though they are humans; they have no right to buy cigarettes, vote, or get married. Abortion rulings and laws are no more or less discriminatory than child-pornography laws. The US Supreme Court decison in Roe v Wade, The Born Alive Infant's Protection Act, and the US Constitutuion do not grant rights to fetuses. When abortion laws and court rulings are made, they rarely center on the fetus; they almost always pit a woman's right to privacy and self-determination against the government's (not fetuses's) rights to "preserve life."

The Constitutional and criminal laws regarding abortion do not center on the fetus or when it is "alive" or a "person;" there's no more reason to ask "when is a fetus a human?" then there is to ask "when is a woman pregnant?"

Rick

So, since it is legal, there is no reason to examine the logic?

yguy · 05-09-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Invader Tak
Nope, I really don't care about your reasoning.

Yeah, I figured. So long.

Invader Tak · 05-09-2003, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Yeah, I figured. So long.

Just stop using bullshit urban legends in your "reasoning".

hezekiah jones · 05-09-2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by yguy
The Constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone, because only dictators have that power.

I knew there was a reason why there was no point to this "debate."

05-09-2003, 11:24 AM	#130
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Re: Re: Aboriton is not about fetal rights Originally posted by yguy The Constitution doesn't grant rights to anyone, because only dictators have that power. I knew there was a reason why there was no point to this "debate."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.