[quote]sufiandy wrote:
The point here is many think destroying an individual human life is not equal to murder, so much so that it shouldn’t even be illegal. [/quote]
Thank you.
This is a very honest description of the matter, which all in all leads us to the bigger picture, and why we of pointy sticks don’t just sit on our hands and still charge the castle.
We have morals.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because that makes perfect sense…[/quote]
It’s why we keep making the apt comparisons to slavery.
I give Andy the upmost credit for willing to be honest here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because that makes perfect sense…[/quote]
It’s why we keep making the apt comparisons to slavery.
I give Andy the upmost credit for willing to be honest here. [/quote]
Ya, I suppose. Hitler was pretty honest too.
*Not calling Andy Hitler…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
We won this argument at the fact the embryo is an individual human life already working through its life cycle. In other words, killing sloth embryo would be/is killing sloth forum contributor. I am that individual in both cases. No switcheroos are done in the womb guys. No organismal sleight of hands. I’m that same individual life throughout my cycle.
[/quote]
unlike you we have all developed
[/quote]
Hey look, a typical democrat, a person isn’t a person unless that person looks the way pittbull likes them to look.
You’d have been a great slaver Pitt. [/quote]
typical red herring defense
[/quote]
Pointing out you either ignore or are ignorant of basic biological fact while commenting on biology is a red herring?
Making fun of that is a defense?
lmao.
[/quote]
calling me a slaver is your version of sense of humor?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because that makes perfect sense…[/quote]
It’s why we keep making the apt comparisons to slavery.
I give Andy the upmost credit for willing to be honest here. [/quote]
RED HERRING
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because that makes perfect sense…[/quote]
It’s why we keep making the apt comparisons to slavery.
I give Andy the upmost credit for willing to be honest here. [/quote]
Ya, I suppose. Hitler was pretty honest too.
*Not calling Andy Hitler…[/quote]
Another Red Herring , oh brainless one
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because that makes perfect sense…[/quote]
It’s why we keep making the apt comparisons to slavery.
I give Andy the upmost credit for willing to be honest here. [/quote]
RED HERRING
[/quote]
Translation:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I get uncomfortable when you guys point out how my perspective on abortion is the very same perspective slave owners used to rationalize owning people. My Democrat party tells me we’re supposed to pretend we weren’t both the slavers and the aborters. Please stop giving me cogitative dissonance. [/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
A person with neither a heart not a functioning brain, the taproots of personhood? If a Zygote fails to become a blastocyst and implant on the uterus wall (perhaps via the so-called morning after pill), did a murder akin shooting an elementary school child occur? How does one murder a eukaryotic cell? [/quote]
Don’t be retarded Bismark, it’s unbecoming.
[/quote]
An insult instead of a reasoned response. Color me surprised. If a woman takes the morning after pill and prevents a eukaryotic zygote from continuing, has she committed murder (that is, the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person)? Is the pharmacy that she procured it from an accomplice to murder? Is she the moral and legal equivalent of someone who murders an elementary school student?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Because that makes perfect sense…[/quote]
It’s why we keep making the apt comparisons to slavery.
I give Andy the upmost credit for willing to be honest here. [/quote]
RED HERRING
[/quote]
Translation:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I get uncomfortable when you guys point out how my perspective on abortion is the very same perspective slave owners used to rationalize owning people. My Democrat party tells me we’re supposed to pretend we weren’t both the slavers and the aborters. Please stop giving me cogitative dissonance. [/quote][/quote]
red her·ring
[Ë?Ë?red Ë?heriNG]
NOUN
a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.
something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting:
"the book is fast-paced, exciting, and full of red herrings"
I know I have to explain it to you , you and USMC are accountants but pay attention to number 2# I will even cut and paste for you “something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting:”
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
A person with neither a heart not a functioning brain, the taproots of personhood? If a Zygote fails to become a blastocyst and implant on the uterus wall (perhaps via the so-called morning after pill), did a murder akin shooting an elementary school child occur? How does one murder a eukaryotic cell? [/quote]
Don’t be retarded Bismark, it’s unbecoming.
[/quote]
An insult instead of a reasoned response. Color me surprised. If a woman takes the morning after pill and prevents a eukaryotic zygote from continuing, has she committed murder (that is, the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person)? Is the pharmacy that she procured it from an accomplice to murder? Is she the moral and legal equivalent of someone who murders an elementary school student? [/quote]
welcome to the CJS
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
A person with neither a heart not a functioning brain, the taproots of personhood? If a Zygote fails to become a blastocyst and implant on the uterus wall (perhaps via the so-called morning after pill), did a murder akin shooting an elementary school child occur? How does one murder a eukaryotic cell? [/quote]
Don’t be retarded Bismark, it’s unbecoming.
[/quote]
An insult instead of a reasoned response. Color me surprised. If a woman takes the morning after pill and prevents a eukaryotic zygote from continuing, has she committed murder (that is, the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person)? Is the pharmacy that she procured it from an accomplice to murder? Is she the moral and legal equivalent of someone who murders an elementary school student? [/quote]
I don’t give reasoned responses to non-sense. That’s why folks like Pitt are on ignore.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
A person with neither a heart not a functioning brain, the taproots of personhood? If a Zygote fails to become a blastocyst and implant on the uterus wall (perhaps via the so-called morning after pill), did a murder akin shooting an elementary school child occur? How does one murder a eukaryotic cell? [/quote]
Don’t be retarded Bismark, it’s unbecoming.
[/quote]
An insult instead of a reasoned response. Color me surprised. If a woman takes the morning after pill and prevents a eukaryotic zygote from continuing, has she committed murder (that is, the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person)? Is the pharmacy that she procured it from an accomplice to murder? Is she the moral and legal equivalent of someone who murders an elementary school student? [/quote]
I don’t give reasoned responses to non-sense. That’s why folks like Pitt are on ignore. [/quote]
How is it nonsense? You claim that a zygote is a “real person just like you or me”. I’m asking if you believe that the morning after pill taken after fettilization is murder and equivalent to the unambiguous murder of an elementary school student. Pretty straightforward.
Could you imagine if I were to start saying something like, “if we’re going to have legal abortion, I suppose my opponent may have been the case for an abortion” I mean, if I were to say “I suppose if anyone has to be aborted we’d all have been better off had it been the case with Suff/Push/Pitt/Sloth/Smh.” Note, I include myself in there so as to make it absolutely clear I do not feel this way about ANY of you. Not at all. My point is, would we not be outraged? But why? If there is some mystical “person-hood” I did not speak to it at all. I spoke specifically of abortion, where it is argued to not be killing/murder…Because the “person-hood” has not descended down from the heavens upon the inarguably individual human life. So, I would not have said anything at all about your person. I would have only commented on a state prior to even the existence of your “person-hood.” But if I, or anyone else, were to suddenly start saying things like this, I am certain it would be treated very much as if I wished that person’s death. And rightfully so.
So let’s bury the comparison to brain death already. None of us actually believe it’s a remotely similar circumstance. One speaks to how an individual human life continues to develop and exercise its faculties, having been “reproduced.”
Here’s the answer as to why it would be so offensive…Because our individual lives are a series of links in one continuous chain. A human life cycle made up of stages. There is no placeholder organism being switched out at some mythical point of “personhood.” It’s just our one individual life no matter where you cut it off at. At least with a chain you end up with two different chains upon cutting a link (if not shorter than the original).
With abortion, the cutting of a link in the human life chain, you only end up with cold, calculated, irreversible death of an innocent human life. And that’s why we’d be so damn offended if it was suggested that any of the participants in this debate should have been aborted.
You can’t murder ole’ Sloth in the Womb, without having murdered me conversing with you now. That was and is my life. This very same one.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
How is it nonsense? [/quote]
you disagree with him ,
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
What are the unborn, from the moment of conception Bismark?
[/quote]
A zygote of course.
[/quote]
You tell em Bismark, just like them Negros, a zygote is less than a real person. They’re just property. [/quote]
Scientifically, I’m correct. [/quote]
You sure are
A person with neither a heart not a functioning brain, the taproots of personhood? If a Zygote fails to become a blastocyst and implant on the uterus wall (perhaps via the so-called morning after pill), did a murder akin shooting an elementary school child occur? How does one murder a eukaryotic cell? [/quote]
Don’t be retarded Bismark, it’s unbecoming.
[/quote]
An insult instead of a reasoned response. Color me surprised. If a woman takes the morning after pill and prevents a eukaryotic zygote from continuing, has she committed murder (that is, the unlawful and premeditated killing of another person)? Is the pharmacy that she procured it from an accomplice to murder? Is she the moral and legal equivalent of someone who murders an elementary school student? [/quote]
I don’t give reasoned responses to non-sense. That’s why folks like Pitt are on ignore. [/quote]
How is it nonsense? You claim that a zygote is a “real person just like you or me”. I’m asking if you believe that the morning after pill taken after fettilization is murder and equivalent to the unambiguous murder of an elementary school student. Pretty straightforward. [/quote]
Yes, they are basically the same thing and should be treated as such under the law.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s the answer as to why it would be so offensive…Because our individual lives are a series of links in one continuous chain.[/quote]
Yes, but nothing that happens to the chain in any given moment can be said to happen to any of its potential links, as they don’t in that moment exist*, and what does not exist cannot be acted upon. Smh_23 is 27. 72-year-old smh_23 does not, on 5 November 2015, exist, and it is logically impossible for this non-existent entity to be touched, much less murdered. Nothing we do is done to anything but the precise thing we do it to in the precise moment of the doing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Speaking of exercise, I don’t believe smh is buying what he’s peddling. He’s testing himself, exercising, to see if he can possibly mount any kind of a defense of his obviously guilty client.[/quote]
In a fundamental way, you’re right. I’ve said before that I am ambivalent about (early) abortion, and this ambivalence goes beyond anything we’re talking about, to moral intuition that can’t be accurately described, much less evidenced.
But, concerning ourselves with what we can talk about, I would say that a different way to describe my purpose here is this: I formulated this argument once. I haven’t been able to refute it since, and I’m here to see if anybody else can. Or if someone can make me think about it differently enough that I might come to understand things better.
I’ll try to deal with all the posts directed at me here: this cannot be dismissed as jargon, and it cannot be gotten around by way of the substitution of vaguer, less descriptive, and less precise terms, particularly if precise terms exist. You cannot appeal to medical fact when it suits your position and then dismiss it as a technicality when it doesn’t: this is called special pleading, and it makes you wrong in the fullest sense of the term. The only way to do this kind of political-moral-legal-philosophical investigation is to reduce the problem to its essential components, its most precise definitions, and to test them.
What I’m concerned with here is whether or not the destruction of an embryo is murder. Murder requires a dead person. A person cannot be said to have died without the cessation of heart/brain activity. Heart/brain activity cannot cease if it hasn’t begun. Therefore, and by necessity, the destruction of an embryo entails no murder. This is the argument. It is valid – there is no question about this. None. I’m interested in seeing whether or not it is sound. It certainly appears to be sound, as each of its sentences is uncontroversially true (and demonstrably so).