I didn't say it created a soul. I said it created a life, and my support is that we're all standing here today.
Why does that fact support the idea that life begins at conception any more strongly than the idea that life begins at implantation, or with the first instance of brain activity, or any number of events in the development of a person?
It doesn't. I simply choose conception as the point of life because it's the earliest possible point. I don't know when life begins or how we should decide that, but I do feel we should never snuff out something that decidedly IS a human life before it has a chance to live. If we don't know exactly when something becomes a human life, then it is only ethical to assume conception because if we assume any later then we are taking the risk of killing a human life.
Ixus Illwrath: If it makes you cringe at the thought, just remember we live in a carnivorous society that butchers livestock wholesale on the premise that 'it's not human so it's not a life'
Well, that's not entirely true actually. The premise is that it's okay to kill animals for food, not that only human life gets any kind of protection. It's okay to boil chickens alive if it's to get the feathers and feces off because you're going to butcher it and serve it as food, but if you do it just for kicks then in some jurisdictions it's illegal.
I don't think that has much to do with abortion, but, still--we are talking about the big concepts of when rights attach to living things
But then what about person Y, who could only develop when sperm cell Y from last month wound up in a happy sock and egg cell Y wound up in the menstrual flow?
Now you're implying that some sort of soul exists for every single possible instance that a child could have been created and if each sperm cell doesn't successfuly enter an egg (that would be one hell of an orgy) that the soul has 'missed it's chance'.
And you just implied that souls exist at all. Prove it.
No I didn't. I was following the train of hypothetical logic to show a flaw in the argument. Please read more carefully.
Ixus Illwrath: Also, about abortion. If your pro-life, you wouldn't do it, right? If you made it illegal you're working too hard to protect the unborn children of SOMEONE ELSE. If it makes you cringe at the thought, just remember we live in a carnivorous society that butchers livestock wholesale on the premise that 'it's not human so it's not a life'
No one who argues against that looks sane. At all. Yeah, fuck you PETA.
Except for the fact that we as a planet respect the lives of humans more than we do of our fellow animals. All animals do this. It's nature. We are more responsible for each other than we are for other species.
I mean, it's obvious that his thinking has more to do with a low regard for the ability of women to choose than with a true interest in children's rights, but, whatever.
Go fuck yourself you hyperbole spouting shithead. Now you're trying to make me look like a woman hater too?! Give me a fucking break. Just because I don't think a woman has the right to end a life means I must be motivated by anti-woman hate? You liberals and your constant accusations of x'ism.
No, it's not just because you don't think a woman has the right to end a life. It's because you wind up calling them "selfish sluts" in arguing that they don't.
Please--tell me why it was necessary to your argument to call women who seek abortions "selfish sluts": if you can, then it's another of those "constant accusations"; if it isn't, well, what's wrong with deciding that someone who goes around calling women "sluts" is sexist?
I'd leave it Cheeze. Nothing any of us can say will convince him of anything. He's got his own rhetoric and sophistry, and he'll keep spouting it even if God himself came down and told him he was wrong.
Personally, I burst out laughing at his statements about British dentists. My mum's a dentist and believe me, the profession is not the shambling mess our friend here would paint it as. Heck, my mum works for the communist NHS, in less than privileged areas of society, yet she still manages to pull in an enviable amount of money.
I didn't say it created a soul. I said it created a life, and my support is that we're all standing here today.
Why does that fact support the idea that life begins at conception any more strongly than the idea that life begins at implantation, or with the first instance of brain activity, or any number of events in the development of a person?
It doesn't. I simply choose conception as the point of life because it's the earliest possible point. I don't know when life begins or how we should decide that, but I do feel we should never snuff out something that decidedly IS a human life before it has a chance to live. If we don't know exactly when something becomes a human life, then it is only ethical to assume conception because if we assume any later then we are taking the risk of killing a human life.
Are we at any risk? A bunch of undifferentiated cells are 'human' life?
Maybe we need to put up a 'fence' somewhere that we're completely sure we don't fall on the wrong side, but there's no way a rational person can look at a pile of cells and think that we're in any danger of it being a person.
I'd love to, but I'm tired. It's hard to be the only right-leaning person on an overwhelmingly liberal board and I've been doing it for 2 or 3 hours now - an embarrasingly long amount of time to argue on an internet forum. I'll pick it up again tomorrow.
Ixus Illwrath: If it makes you cringe at the thought, just remember we live in a carnivorous society that butchers livestock wholesale on the premise that 'it's not human so it's not a life'
Well, that's not entirely true actually. The premise is that it's okay to kill animals for food, not that only human life gets any kind of protection. It's okay to boil chickens alive if it's to get the feathers and feces off because you're going to butcher it and serve it as food, but if you do it just for kicks then in some jurisdictions it's illegal.
I don't think that has much to do with abortion, but, still--we are talking about the big concepts of when rights attach to living things
Well my point remains, if it's legal, you don't have to do it. They don't herd preggers into abortion clinics because of the joy they get from aborting babies. If it bothers you morally, you can exempt yourself from it entirely.
The fact remains is that the life or not a life argument remains a philosophical difference. Don't come down on those on the other side of the fence.
I mean, it's obvious that his thinking has more to do with a low regard for the ability of women to choose than with a true interest in children's rights, but, whatever.
Go fuck yourself you hyperbole spouting shithead. Now you're trying to make me look like a woman hater too?! Give me a fucking break. Just because I don't think a woman has the right to end a life means I must be motivated by anti-woman hate? You liberals and your constant accusations of x'ism.
No, it's not just because you don't think a woman has the right to end a life. It's because you wind up calling them "selfish sluts" in arguing that they don't.
Please--tell me why it was necessary to your argument to call women who seek abortions "selfish sluts": if you can, then it's another of those "constant accusations"; if it isn't, well, what's wrong with deciding that someone who goes around calling women "sluts" is sexist?
I'd leave it Cheeze. Nothing any of us can say will convince him of anything. He's got his own rhetoric and sophistry, and he'll keep spouting it even if God himself came down and told him he was wrong.
Personally, I burst out laughing at his statements about British dentists. My mum's a dentist and believe me, the profession is not the shambling mess our friend here would paint it as. Heck, my mum works for the communist NHS, in less than privileged areas of society, yet she still manages to pull in an enviable amount of money.
One more thing: knock off your know it all bullshit. You aren't fooling anyone. Stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you is a simpleton and maybe people will respect you more.
Mistah Kurtz: I'd love to, but I'm tired. It's hard to be the only right-leaning person on an overwhelmingly liberal board and I've been doing it for 2 or 3 hours now - an embarrasingly long amount of time to argue on an internet forum. I'll pick it up again tomorrow.
Good debate, nonetheless. I liked seeing that get a bit more civil towards the end.
Personally, I burst out laughing at his statements about British dentists. My mum's a dentist and believe me, the profession is not the shambling mess our friend here would paint it as. Heck, my mum works for the communist NHS, in less than privileged areas of society, yet she still manages to pull in an enviable amount of money.
Certainly. A dentist in the UK can have a very nice life, especially if their spouse is a chiropodist.
I didn't say it created a soul. I said it created a life, and my support is that we're all standing here today.
Why does that fact support the idea that life begins at conception any more strongly than the idea that life begins at implantation, or with the first instance of brain activity, or any number of events in the development of a person?
It doesn't. I simply choose conception as the point of life because it's the earliest possible point. I don't know when life begins or how we should decide that, but I do feel we should never snuff out something that decidedly IS a human life before it has a chance to live. If we don't know exactly when something becomes a human life, then it is only ethical to assume conception because if we assume any later then we are taking the risk of killing a human life.
Not really. You're saying that we should pass legislation that causes serious problems for many people on the grounds of a hypothetical problem. You're making an existence claim, and it would be equally irresponsible to create legislation and enforce said legislation that fucks taxpayers over using taxpayer money because of said claim. As of now you're basically trying to legislate a moral viewpoint with no additional weight than the catholic standpoint that bans condoms and other forms of contraception. It's NOT the earliest possible point. Once again, you've decided, completely arbitrarily I might add, that it is the earliest possible moment. If it is the earliest possible point, offer some goddamn proof.
No I didn't. I was following the train of hypothetical logic to show a flaw in the argument. Please read more carefully.
But that "flaw in the argument" had nothing to do with my argument! If it was a flaw in my argument then that means souls exist. If it doesn't than it means that you actually didn't respond to my arguments and simply reiterated your previous points. Because you still have the arbitrary line between "conception" and "egg and sperm" without any actual evidence. Stop with the goddamned sophistry and come up with some proof.
Mistah Kurtz: As a white person living in america, a candidate having racist views towards white people being elected to lead a large amount of white people in america is not something that I want. Do you think that David Duke should ever be president if he has a superior fiscal policy over his opponent? This is exactly the same situation. The only reason you're defending the fact that Obama was a prominent member in a radical racist organization is because he is black. You would never defend David Duke in the same way.
Haha.
I'm sorry but I'm not defending Obama. My point was that you are putting all of your effort and time into the silly propaganda that each side pulls up on one another. Yet, you probably do little to look up McCain's bad side, right?
I view the world as a complex geopolitical situation and a Senator's tenuous association with the racist rhetoric of a group that he was giving lip services to in order to gain votes is irrelevant to me.
I care about real issues, you care about pundit nonsense.
You want to talk about real issues? How about Obama's insistence not to drill in ANWR? How about his demand for a fucking TIME TABLE to withdraw from Iraq? (FUN FACT: YOU DON'T FUCKING TELL THE ENEMY WHEN YOU'RE LEAVING, RETARD) How about his pro-affirmative action stance? How about his nasty anti-southern remarks about them being bitter gun clutchers? (I wonder what that says about his attitudes on gun control - probably the typical left wing fascist gun control stance)
I will again raise an objection citing Australia as evidence.
We have gun control here. Rather strict.
It works exceptionally well, in that I never have been (and likely never will be) threatened by a gun.
I will also point out that drilling for more oil will not solve current fuel price problems - the only way that will be sorted out will be to develop a method of manufacturing fuel from an inexpensive, renewable resource. Ethanol, incidentally, is not the answer either, merely a stepping stone.
Apparently you're unfamiliar with basic economic theory. I'll explain briefly. When supply goes up, demand goes down, resulting in lower prices. Assuming you don't reject the law of supply and demand, it follows that if you increase the supply of oil then you will decrease the demand for it, thus lowering the cost. How you can say that with a straight face is beyond me.
No friend, YOU do not understand. Oil remains a finite substance. Personally I don't know how much is left to be drilled. I do know it won't last. It makes sense that, rather than relying on it further, we move to another fuel source.
This has nothing to do with solving short-term fuel price increases, and instead is focused long-term. I understand well-enough that drilling now will lower prices now, but that does not solve the problem. I'm an engineer - I prefer to solve problems rather than treat symptoms.
I note also you have no response to Australia's gun control. I consider that telling...
Personally, I burst out laughing at his statements about British dentists. My mum's a dentist and believe me, the profession is not the shambling mess our friend here would paint it as. Heck, my mum works for the communist NHS, in less than privileged areas of society, yet she still manages to pull in an enviable amount of money.
Certainly. A dentist in the UK can have a very nice life, especially if their spouse is a chiropodist.
Ha! My mum's spouse was a farm labourer, working for minimum wage. We still had a nice house, right up until they decided to divorce. Not that I'm bitter about that or anything...
Skulks off moaning about the good old days, when life was peachy, and houses were large and comfortable. Not like the shoe-boxes they're trying to fob off as housing now...
Mistah Kurtz: I'd love to, but I'm tired. It's hard to be the only right-leaning person on an overwhelmingly liberal board and I've been doing it for 2 or 3 hours now - an embarrasingly long amount of time to argue on an internet forum. I'll pick it up again tomorrow.
No--it's hard to be the only person calling a "good deal" of women who get abortions "selfish sluts" on an overwhelmingly liberal board. Don't blame your bad reception on something other than your own bad behavior, there, Novak.
I mean, it's obvious that his thinking has more to do with a low regard for the ability of women to choose than with a true interest in children's rights, but, whatever.
Go fuck yourself you hyperbole spouting shithead. Now you're trying to make me look like a woman hater too?! Give me a fucking break. Just because I don't think a woman has the right to end a life means I must be motivated by anti-woman hate? You liberals and your constant accusations of x'ism.
No, it's not just because you don't think a woman has the right to end a life. It's because you wind up calling them "selfish sluts" in arguing that they don't.
Please--tell me why it was necessary to your argument to call women who seek abortions "selfish sluts": if you can, then it's another of those "constant accusations"; if it isn't, well, what's wrong with deciding that someone who goes around calling women "sluts" is sexist?
I'd leave it Cheeze. Nothing any of us can say will convince him of anything. He's got his own rhetoric and sophistry, and he'll keep spouting it even if God himself came down and told him he was wrong.
Personally, I burst out laughing at his statements about British dentists. My mum's a dentist and believe me, the profession is not the shambling mess our friend here would paint it as. Heck, my mum works for the communist NHS, in less than privileged areas of society, yet she still manages to pull in an enviable amount of money.
One more thing: knock off your know it all bullshit. You aren't fooling anyone. Stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you is a simpleton and maybe people will respect you more.
Mistah Kurtz: As a white person living in america, a candidate having racist views towards white people being elected to lead a large amount of white people in america is not something that I want. Do you think that David Duke should ever be president if he has a superior fiscal policy over his opponent? This is exactly the same situation. The only reason you're defending the fact that Obama was a prominent member in a radical racist organization is because he is black. You would never defend David Duke in the same way.
Haha.
I'm sorry but I'm not defending Obama. My point was that you are putting all of your effort and time into the silly propaganda that each side pulls up on one another. Yet, you probably do little to look up McCain's bad side, right?
I view the world as a complex geopolitical situation and a Senator's tenuous association with the racist rhetoric of a group that he was giving lip services to in order to gain votes is irrelevant to me.
I care about real issues, you care about pundit nonsense.
You want to talk about real issues? How about Obama's insistence not to drill in ANWR? How about his demand for a fucking TIME TABLE to withdraw from Iraq? (FUN FACT: YOU DON'T FUCKING TELL THE ENEMY WHEN YOU'RE LEAVING, RETARD) How about his pro-affirmative action stance? How about his nasty anti-southern remarks about them being bitter gun clutchers? (I wonder what that says about his attitudes on gun control - probably the typical left wing fascist gun control stance)
I will again raise an objection citing Australia as evidence.
We have gun control here. Rather strict.
It works exceptionally well, in that I never have been (and likely never will be) threatened by a gun.
I will also point out that drilling for more oil will not solve current fuel price problems - the only way that will be sorted out will be to develop a method of manufacturing fuel from an inexpensive, renewable resource. Ethanol, incidentally, is not the answer either, merely a stepping stone.
Apparently you're unfamiliar with basic economic theory. I'll explain briefly. When supply goes up, demand goes down, resulting in lower prices. Assuming you don't reject the law of supply and demand, it follows that if you increase the supply of oil then you will decrease the demand for it, thus lowering the cost. How you can say that with a straight face is beyond me.
No friend, YOU do not understand. Oil remains a finite substance. Personally I don't know how much is left to be drilled. I do know it won't last. It makes sense that, rather than relying on it further, we move to another fuel source.
This has nothing to do with solving short-term fuel price increases, and instead is focused long-term. I understand well-enough that drilling now will lower prices now, but that does not solve the problem. I'm an engineer - I prefer to solve problems rather than treat symptoms.
I note also you have no response to Australia's gun control. I consider that telling...
That's because you offered only circumstantial evidence - that you yourself have never been threatened with a gun. I haven't either, and we have much laxer laws. By your logic I could claim the same thing, but I won't because that's flawed reasoning. When you take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and put more guns on the black market, that simply means that only criminals will have access to guns, thus endangering citizens. In a word: Bullshit.
Alright then Mr. Engineer. Come up with an alternate fuel, test it, perfect it, and introduce it into the market. Go ahead. Do it. Couldn't do it? Thought so. You haven't done it yet. That's because science takes TIME. And until that TIME comes where the scientists and engineers can GIVE us a reliable, efficient, cheap fuel source, we have to continue using oil, and thus have to continue drilling for it. Simple, really.
Mistah Kurtz: I'd love to, but I'm tired. It's hard to be the only right-leaning person on an overwhelmingly liberal board and I've been doing it for 2 or 3 hours now - an embarrasingly long amount of time to argue on an internet forum. I'll pick it up again tomorrow.
No--it's hard to be the only person calling a "good deal" of women who get abortions "selfish sluts" on an overwhelmingly liberal board. Don't blame your bad reception on something other than your own bad behavior, there, Novak.
I mean, it's obvious that his thinking has more to do with a low regard for the ability of women to choose than with a true interest in children's rights, but, whatever.
Go fuck yourself you hyperbole spouting shithead. Now you're trying to make me look like a woman hater too?! Give me a fucking break. Just because I don't think a woman has the right to end a life means I must be motivated by anti-woman hate? You liberals and your constant accusations of x'ism.
No, it's not just because you don't think a woman has the right to end a life. It's because you wind up calling them "selfish sluts" in arguing that they don't.
Please--tell me why it was necessary to your argument to call women who seek abortions "selfish sluts": if you can, then it's another of those "constant accusations"; if it isn't, well, what's wrong with deciding that someone who goes around calling women "sluts" is sexist?
I'd leave it Cheeze. Nothing any of us can say will convince him of anything. He's got his own rhetoric and sophistry, and he'll keep spouting it even if God himself came down and told him he was wrong.
Personally, I burst out laughing at his statements about British dentists. My mum's a dentist and believe me, the profession is not the shambling mess our friend here would paint it as. Heck, my mum works for the communist NHS, in less than privileged areas of society, yet she still manages to pull in an enviable amount of money.
One more thing: knock off your know it all bullshit. You aren't fooling anyone. Stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you is a simpleton and maybe people will respect you more.
So I'm smart when I agree with you, and I'm a "know it all" when I disagree with you.
Kinda like how if Bristol Palin was black, she'd be everything that is wrong with America, but since she's white, she just made a "mistake"?
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the jackass with the Zues sculpture avatar. And if there was a movement in white culture that glorified the very things that are making the black community such hard places to live, I'd be criticizing that too.
EDIT: By the way, for future reference - if i intend to quote you, I'll quote you and direct my comments at you. If I quote someone who quoted you, assume i'm responding to the quoter, not the original quotee in my quote. If i was talking to you I would have quoted you directly. You have proxy-quote paranoia.
So as a rhetoric test, I pose this question based on these views, which I have, who would you vote for?
here's the major issues and my stance on them:
Gun control - Against it Abortion - Pro-choice War in Iraq - For it Timetables for withdrawal - For them Universal health care - For it Separation of church and state - Need more of it Oil drilling - For it Adaption of alternative energies - For it Has the US lost some street cred in the last 8 years - Yes I believe it has War on Terror - Can we just have a war on religion? Seriously, grow up humanity.
Now, if you say Ron Paul you're gonna get punched in the dick.
Marbas: As of now you're basically trying to legislate a moral viewpoint with no additional weight than the catholic standpoint that bans condoms and other forms of contraception.
Just to stick up for Catholics, the official position that I'm aware of on condoms and contraception is that sex should only be engaged in when the two people are open to the creation of a new life. It's actually a distinct theological point from that on which Catholic opposition to abortion rests.
In fact, one of the major contributors to the development of the Pill was a Catholic who thought that it would be, well, kosher with Catholic doctrine. It wasn't for this reason, I think.
Marbas: As of now you're basically trying to legislate a moral viewpoint with no additional weight than the catholic standpoint that bans condoms and other forms of contraception.
Just to stick up for Catholics, the official position that I'm aware of on condoms and contraception is that sex should only be engaged in when the two people are open to the creation of a new life. It's actually a distinct theological point from that on which Catholic opposition to abortion rests.
In fact, one of the major contributors to the development of the Pill was a Catholic who thought that it would be, well, kosher with Catholic doctrine. It wasn't for this reason, I think.
I'm against condoms as my cock does not like being inside of them. And don't you feel like you didn't technically have sex after using one?
Marbas: As of now you're basically trying to legislate a moral viewpoint with no additional weight than the catholic standpoint that bans condoms and other forms of contraception.
Just to stick up for Catholics, the official position that I'm aware of on condoms and contraception is that sex should only be engaged in when the two people are open to the creation of a new life. It's actually a distinct theological point from that on which Catholic opposition to abortion rests.
In fact, one of the major contributors to the development of the Pill was a Catholic who thought that it would be, well, kosher with Catholic doctrine. It wasn't for this reason, I think.
It doesn't. I simply choose conception as the point of life because it's the earliest possible point. I don't know when life begins or how we should decide that, but I do feel we should never snuff out something that decidedly IS a human life before it has a chance to live. If we don't know exactly when something becomes a human life, then it is only ethical to assume conception because if we assume any later then we are taking the risk of killing a human life.