• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Abortion is murder

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Abortion forum

Those that are subject to abortion, cannot speak for themselves, obviously, so who is going to speak for them? Abortion to an infant is like having war waged upon you, except it is truly unfair; you have no defence, no peace talks, no debate, and no compromising. It is a very cruel set of circumstance that is levelled at any baby in this situation. The good news is that the number of people, who are realizing that this is a barbaric act, which ought to be outlawed, is increasing. People are becoming more vocal, stating that it truly is merciless and repulsive. If I was to divulge information that describes graphically the partial birth abortion to a child, most people would deem it immoral, and they would be right, so how greater offence is it to subject a baby to the procedure!

Abortion forum
 

hipster_19

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
Location
Dayton, OH
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
jimmyjack said:
Abortion forum

Those that are subject to abortion, cannot speak for themselves, obviously, so who is going to speak for them? Abortion to an infant is like having war waged upon you, except it is truly unfair; you have no defence, no peace talks, no debate, and no compromising. It is a very cruel set of circumstance that is levelled at any baby in this situation. The good news is that the number of people, who are realizing that this is a barbaric act, which ought to be outlawed, is increasing. People are becoming more vocal, stating that it truly is merciless and repulsive. If I was to divulge information that describes graphically the partial birth abortion to a child, most people would deem it immoral, and they would be right, so how greater offence is it to subject a baby to the procedure!

Abortion forum
So, um, what gave you the right to speak for the fetus if it can't speak for itself? What makes you think that you know whats best for it? There are many things in this world that are immoral, but legal, so deal with it!
 

FutureIncoming

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jimmyjack wrote: "Those that are subject to abortion, cannot speak for themselves, obviously, so who is going to speak for them?"

WHY SHOULD ANYONE? The biological FACT of the matter is that unborn humans are animals, just like flies and mosquitos and rats are animals. Why don't you speak for THEM? Well, to insist that human animals must have a spokesperson merely reveals prejudice and hypocrisy on your part.



jimmyjack also wrote: "Abortion to an infant is like having war waged upon you, except it is truly unfair; you have no defence, no peace talks, no debate, and no compromising."

TRUE. On the other hand, ALL ordinary animals are unable to compromise. That's why we who ARE able to compromise limit our compromises with each other, and do not include animals. The biological FACT of the matter is that the unborn human animal uncompromisingly takes whatever it wants from the body of its host, exactly like any other animal parasite on Earth. For you to accept the uncompromising killing of parasites like malaria, ringworm, nematodes, and endless others, but not unborn humans, merely reveals prejudice and hypocrisy on your part.



jimmyjack also wrote: "It is a very cruel set of circumstance that is levelled at any baby in this situation."

BLATHER. First, the word "baby" does not apply. Did you ever hear the dictum, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched?" WELL, what do you call them before they hatch? NOT chickens! Why should that dictum be unapplicable to humans, especially when 40% OR MORE of all fertilized human eggs NATURALLY either fail to implant in a womb, or miscarry sometime after implanting? "DON'T count your babies before they are born!" It will only cause heartaches; just ask all women wanting children who miscarried and who ALSO counted their offspring before the normal term of pregnancy was over. Next, the word "cruel" is a word that presumes UNDERSTANDING of cruelty by the victim. Yet most abortions take place upon humans so undeveloped that they have almost NO brain. Certainly they understand absolutely nothing --and their brains don't even connect to the rest of the body until the end of the 6th month. Their bodies EVEN AT THIS STAGE (6 months) are nothing more than stimulus/response biomachinery, perhaps comparable to a rat. If someone takes a sledgehammer to a complicated machine like your car, do you say that the car has experienced cruelty? Isn't a SLOW death cruel, when compared to a quick death? Then why are you claiming cruelty when abortion has the purpose of killing as quickly as possible? Your statement merely reveals ignorance of facts and bad logic, standar hallmarks of EVERY anti-abortion argument.



jimmyjack also wrote: "The good news is that the number of people, who are realizing that this is a barbaric act, which ought to be outlawed, is increasing."

MORE BLATHER. AND, since world population is increasing, so also is increasing the number of people who can recognize prejudice, hypocrisy, ignorance, and bad logic. And who will say so, when given a chance.



jimmyjack also wrote: "People are becoming more vocal, stating that it truly is merciless and repulsive."

MORE BLATHER. The merciless is both true and IRRELEVANT, the same as the merciless you exhibit when you swat a mosquito. See above about "uncompromising". The "repulsive" is OPINION AND RELATIVE. Suppose I wrote: "Many people are becoming more vocal, stating that slavery is more repulsive than abortion." You ARE promoting slavery of Free-Willed women to mindless animals, don't you realize that?



jimmyjack also wrote: "If I was to divulge information that describes graphically the partial birth abortion to a child, most people would deem it immoral, and they would be right,"

MORE BLATHER. "Morals" are ARBITRARY, being different in different cultures. AND you are mistaken about such a description being bad for children. Don't you recall the days when kids watched AND HELPED farm animals being slaughtered for dinner? NEVER should you discount the resilience and adaptability of children. FALSE BLATHER, therefore.



jimmyjack also wrote: "so how greater offence is it to subject a baby to the procedure!"

THE EXPECT-ABLE CONCLUSION TO PREJUDICE, HYPOCRISY, IGNORANCE, AND BAD LOGIC. Tsk, tsk.
 

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
WHY SHOULD ANYONE? The biological FACT of the matter is that unborn humans are animals, just like flies and mosquitos and rats are animals. Why don't you speak for THEM? Well, to insist that human animals must have a spokesperson merely reveals prejudice and hypocrisy on your part.
I'm merely highlighting a contradiction in the law that says that we should not kill people. Besides, adult humans are animals too, think about it. Shall we kill those in comas for convenience? They cannot speak for themselves either, is it prejudicial not to kill them?

TRUE. On the other hand, ALL ordinary animals are unable to compromise. That's why we who ARE able to compromise limit our compromises with each other, and do not include animals.
So you want to kill new born children too? Wake up fool!

The biological FACT of the matter is that the unborn human animal uncompromisingly takes whatever it wants from the body of its host, exactly like any other animal parasite on Earth.
Did it uncompromisingly take life too? or was it forced to live? -Then don’t force it to die either.

For you to accept the uncompromising killing of parasites like malaria, ringworm, nematodes, and endless others, but not unborn humans, merely reveals prejudice and hypocrisy on your part.
They where not put there deliberately, the unborn was, learn the vital difference.

BLATHER. First, the word "baby" does not apply. Did you ever hear the dictum, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched?"
The human egg was not hatched, but at conception it was, no points for you there.

WELL, what do you call them before they hatch? NOT chickens! Why should that dictum be unapplicable to humans, especially when 40% OR MORE of all fertilized human eggs NATURALLY either fail to implant in a womb, or miscarry sometime after implanting?
Those that die through a miscarriage, do so naturally, just as old people usually do, but deliberately killing humans must never be acceptable. I don’t see why you have a problem with that, nor can I understand how you fail to see the huge difference.

"DON'T count your babies before they are born!"
Well they are born, born into life. The fact that their location is the womb, ought not to be a factor for whether they are entitled to life or not, especially since they where forced there.

It will only cause heartaches; just ask all women wanting children who miscarried and who ALSO counted their offspring before the normal term of pregnancy was over.
Sure, much like the heartache of losing a relative since during an abortion that is exactly what happens.

Next, the word "cruel" is a word that presumes UNDERSTANDING of cruelty by the victim. Yet most abortions take place upon humans so undeveloped that they have almost NO brain. Certainly they understand absolutely nothing --and their brains don't even connect to the rest of the body until the end of the 6th month. Their bodies EVEN AT THIS STAGE (6 months) are nothing more than stimulus/response biomachinery, perhaps comparable to a rat.
Except, a more accurate analogy is like that of a man in a coma pending consciousness, since they are both human species and are pending consciousness, your analogy is immensely poor.
If someone takes a sledgehammer to a complicated machine like your car, do you say that the car has experienced cruelty?
Well the analogy stinks because you are not even comparing life to life, you compare humans to cars and that is a weak analogy if ever I saw one, you are creating a habit for this.

Isn't a SLOW death cruel, when compared to a quick death? Then why are you claiming cruelty when abortion has the purpose of killing as quickly as possible?
Burning in saltwater is not quick, yet it is sure as hell a cruel way to kill your own son or daughter.

Your statement merely reveals ignorance of facts and bad logic, standar hallmarks of EVERY anti-abortion argument.
My argument has complete logic, and it makes sense, your perspective is distorted, much like Hitler’s was towards the Jews.
MORE BLATHER. AND, since world population is increasing, so also is increasing the number of people who can recognize prejudice, hypocrisy, ignorance, and bad logic. And who will say so, when given a chance.
Well the population is predicted to decline in the near future, and many countries need a population boom in order to stave off bankruptcy, the United States amongst the most desperate, so I think the bad logic and ignorance award is well and truly yours and the hypocrisy medal is the jewel in the crown.

MORE BLATHER. The merciless is both true and IRRELEVANT, the same as the merciless you exhibit when you swat a mosquito.
You need to learn that a mosquito is destroyed because it usually invades the body of a human without invitation. Whereas most pregnancies happen because a human has forced another human to exist within them, the human that perpetrated the force often destroys the offspring purely for convenience. Furthermore, the difference with killing a human and a mosquito is completely different, so the fact that you find it difficult to perceive this huge difference in species is no surprise.

See above about "uncompromising". The "repulsive" is OPINION AND RELATIVE. Suppose I wrote: "Many people are becoming more vocal, stating that slavery is more repulsive than abortion."
Yes, thankfully people did, but for the dim-witted it took several years for them to see the light, we got there in the end though.

You ARE promoting slavery of Free-Willed women to mindless animals, don't you realize that?
Slavery involved the killing of humans and the removal of rights because some people thought they where more important then other people, just as people are still doing today, all that has changed is that the one without rights and considered subhuman are those in the womb. When abortion is perceived by the masses as genocide, there will be another ethical group or minority waiting to receive mans inhumanity.

MORE BLATHER. "Morals" are ARBITRARY, being different in different cultures. AND you are mistaken about such a description being bad for children. Don't you recall the days when kids watched AND HELPED farm animals being slaughtered for dinner? NEVER should you discount the resilience and adaptability of children. FALSE BLATHER, therefore.
Then you would have no problem with making abortion illegal, since “Morals” are arbitrary as you say.

THE EXPECT-ABLE CONCLUSION TO PREJUDICE, HYPOCRISY, IGNORANCE, AND BAD LOGIC. Tsk, tsk.
Nice way to describe yourself.

__________________
I'm waiting for a pro-lifer to successfully take up this challenge:
"Define "person" to be Universally accurate, regardless of physical nature, to distinguish people from mere animals, anywhere.
When you prove a foetus is not a person then I will take up the challenge. After all it is you that wants to kill them, not me, the onus is on you.

For example, if God exists, is non-biological, and is a person, then God is a person because {--put definitive criteria here--}.
After that, please explain how unborn humans are so different from mere animals that they should be classed as persons, too.
Good Luck!
Look at your average dictionary, it says: a human is a person; therefore an unborn is a person because it is a human.
 

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
hipster_19 said:
So, um, what gave you the right to speak for the fetus if it can't speak for itself? What makes you think that you know whats best for it? There are many things in this world that are immoral, but legal, so deal with it!
Well, the right is called: Freedom of speech.

Speech, freedom of, liberty to speak and otherwise express oneself and one's opinions. Like freedom of the press, which pertains to the publication of speech, freedom of speech itself has been absolute in no time or place. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars the federal government from “abridging the freedom of speech”; since the 1920s the amendment's protections have been extended against state, as well as against federal, action.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hi jimmy. I couldn't help but notice that you are posting spamming advertisements of forums that practice flagrant censorship and delete pro-choice posts. As far as I understand the rules here, such spamming advertising is not permitted.
 

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Too bad you have no proof, it seems you have spouted another critical and pointless accusation, I guess you are not such a good lie detector after all.
 

FISHX

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Great to see you jimmy;)

Guys i really don,t see how having a link in your siggy can be classed as spamming it isn,t as though he has posted the link and nothing else is it.
 

FutureIncoming

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
jimmyjack quoted: "WHY SHOULD ANYONE? The biological FACT of the matter is that unborn humans are animals, just like flies and mosquitos and rats are animals. Why don't you speak for THEM? Well, to insist that human animals must have a spokesperson merely reveals prejudice and hypocrisy on your part."

--and wrote: "I'm merely highlighting a contradiction in the law that says that we should not kill people."

INAPPLICABLE. No unborn human qualifies for "person" status, EXCEPT through prejudice and/or hypocrisy. See the challenge in my signature area? THINK about it. On what grounds could an Artificial Intelligence be called a person and not "just a machine"? It would have to exhibit certain mental abilities that NO typical animal can match, wouldn't it?. Well, NO unborn human has those mental abilities, either! So, by not qualifying as people, the law against killing people would make it murder to unplug that Artificial Intelligence, but not murder to abort unborn human ANIMALS.


jimmyjack also wrote: "Besides, adult humans are animals too, think about it."

Oh, I agree completely, BUT ADULT HUMANS (most of them) ARE MORE THAN ONLY ANIMALS. They DO have the mental abilities that distinguish them as persons.


jimmyjack also wrote: "Shall we kill those in comas for convenience? They cannot speak for themselves either, is it prejudicial not to kill them?"

Humans in comas have NOT **LOST** their mental abilities. Those abilities are merely inactive while the comas persist. However, humans with sufficiently significant brain damage (the "brain dead" on life support) HAVE **LOST** their mental abilities. They no longer qualify as persons, and are mere animal bodies ONLY. Do you understand the distinction now?



Before moving to the next thing you wrote, I need to address one particular STUPIDITY that you are implying. THE LACK OF A RIGHT-TO-LIFE IS ***NOT*** THE SAME THING AS AN AUTOMATIC DEATH PENALTY. Your average anthill does not have right-to-life, AND we do not typically go out of our way to stomp the average anthill. See? SO, a severely retarded adult human is one with no more mental abilities than an ordinary animal, and hence does not qualify for person status and need not be granted right-to-life. However, the presence of that human may be WANTED. If those who do the wanting also are willing to do the supporting, there is no problem. Remember that PETS are only animals, not persons, and so they do not have right-to-life either. But they are often wanted, an so are not usually killed arbitrarily. The unborn humans who are aborted are all UNwanted animals. The wanted ones are born and raised, usually to "person" status.




jimmyjack quoted: "TRUE. On the other hand, ALL ordinary animals are unable to compromise. That's why we who ARE able to compromise limit our compromises with each other, and do not include animals."

--and wrote: "So you want to kill new born children too? Wake up fool!"

As just explained above, I am not the one spouting idiotic stupidities.




jimmyjack quoted: "The biological FACT of the matter is that the unborn human animal uncompromisingly takes whatever it wants from the body of its host, exactly like any other animal parasite on Earth."

--and wrote: "Did it uncompromisingly take life too? or was it forced to live? -Then don’t force it to die either."

BAD LOGIC. Some parasites DO take the lives of their hosts, and some don't. It is well-documented that unborn humans sometimes are indeed parasites of the deadly variety. But that aspect of parasitism is not as relevant as the fact of the parasitism. If a parasite latches onto YOU, do you let it or resist it? MOST humans would resist it, even knowing that unlatching it would be the death of it. But then, all known parasites are mindless animals, stimulus/response bio-machines. Their deaths are basically insignificant. NEXT, Life is something that "just happens". Evolutionists are still studying the details, but they are confident their basic facts of the matter are accurate. AND DEATH CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, TOO. As an analogy, consider a lightning strike. It may hit rocks or sandy soil, and nothing much happens afterward. Or it may hit vegetation and start fire. Was this fire "forced" or did it "just happen"? Certainly the lightning, the cause of the fire, "just happened", so full consideration of the cause-and-effect chain-of-events should lead us to say that the fire "just happened", also, even if only indirectly. So, we have this fire, a pseudo-living thing, doing what all fires do, trying to consume everything it can get at. Nature has been dealing with fires for more than half-a-billion years, and some trees NEED fire in order to reproduce successfully. Then humans came along and arbitrarily, subjectively, used their mental abilities to decide that some fires were good and desirable, and some fires were bad and undesirable. Making decisions is just one of those things that persons DO. WHO ARE YOU TO INTERFERE in the choices of others, regarding parasitic life-forms they might consider undesirable?




jimmyjack also wrote: "{ordinary parasites} were not put there deliberately, the unborn was, learn the vital difference."

IT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE to claim that every unborn human exists deliberately. There is actually good logic to support the opposite claim, that NO unborn human EVER existed deliberately (except maybe Jesus). Are you not aware that roughly 1/7 of all human couples are infertile? ALL THEIR REPRODUCTION-DELIBERATIONS AMOUNT TO NOTHING. Which fundamentally means that human fertility is **NOT** directly subject to human Will/deliberateness. NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY is in charge of whether or not unborn humans exist, just like Natural Mindless Physics is in charge of whether or not lightning starts a fire.



jimmyjack quoted: "BLATHER. First, the word "baby" does not apply. Did you ever hear the dictum, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched?"

--and wrote: "The human egg was not hatched, but at conception it was, no points for you there."

I was analogizing hatching with birthing. If normal birth occurs (and I'll throw in Cesarean sections just so we don't argue about it), then you have a baby. Before then, all you have is a likely possibility of a baby. Which you shouldn't count because it might be stillborn. And FYI, fertilized human eggs DO hatch days AFTER conception; see this link: http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm The hatching process sometimes splits the emerging bunch-of-stem-cells, leading to twins.



jimmyjack quoted: "what do you call them before they hatch? NOT chickens! Why should that dictum be unapplicable to humans, especially when 40% OR MORE of all fertilized human eggs NATURALLY either fail to implant in a womb, or miscarry sometime after implanting?"

--and wrote: "Those that die through a miscarriage, do so naturally, just as old people usually do, but deliberately killing humans must never be acceptable. I don’t see why you have a problem with that, nor can I understand how you fail to see the huge difference."

I see your delusion perfectly. You somehow think that human actions are not Natural, even though humans, like beavers, are products of Nature. Beaver dams are Natural but human dams aren't? MORE idiotic stupidity. A human shooing a fly is as Natural as a horse swishing its tail for the same purpose. A farmer butchering a hog is as Natural as a pod of killer whales feasting on a blue. Therefore your statement, "deliberately killing humans must never be acceptable" IS PURE PREJUDICE. Not to mention you are saying that if a terrorist shoots at you, you are not allowed to shoot back. Terrorists are those who, to paraphrase an idiom, "live by the gun", and hence are Traditionally allowed to "die by the gun". WHOSE gun shouldn't matter. The problem with your statement is that it is UNSUPPORTED AND NOT PRECISE. What you SHOULD have written is something like, "persons should generally not kill other persons, because they are thereby generally inviting their own deaths (although exceptions do happen)". In this way we can hope to avert an interstellar war with nohumans who we might happen to look ugly (and who probably in turn would think we look ugly). Persons can UNDERSTAND things like The Golden Rule. Unborn humans, however, understand absolutely nothing. That is why they are not persons and that is why they need not be included in guidelines for persons.

{continued next message}
 

FutureIncoming

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
{continued from Message #10}


jimmyjack quoted: "DON'T count your babies before they are born!"

--and wrote: "Well they are born, born into life.

WRONG. "borne" is the accurate word there, not "born". "borne" may apply to sperm-grabbed-by-egg at conception, but only "born" (I again include Cesareans) can yield something you can count on as being a baby.

jimmyjack also wrote: "The fact that their location is the womb, ought not to be a factor for whether they are entitled to life or not, especially since they where forced there."

AN OUTRIGHT LIE REPEATED does not make it any less an outright lie. And the relevant FACTS are parasitism by an animal, and the ability of the host to make decisions about wants. YOUR wants are not the host's wants, so why should your wants prevail?



jimmyjack quoted: "{counting babies before birth} will only cause heartaches; just ask all women wanting children who miscarried and who ALSO counted their offspring before the normal term of pregnancy was over.

--and wrote: "Sure, much like the heartache of losing a relative since during an abortion that is exactly what happens."

IF YOU ARE SO STUPID AS TO ASSUME YOU HAVE A RELATIVE WHEN YOU MIGHT NOT, THEN YOU DESERVE THE HEARTACHE THAT RESULTS WHEN THE "MIGHT NOT" BECOMES TRUE. Why should any rational person accept a philosophy that PROMOTES such idiotic stupidity? Why do you THINK our ancestors told us not to count chickens before they hatched? Do you think they were stupid like you? THEY had to deal with BORN children who about 50% of the time died by age 3. They were not about to count babies not yet born! AND THEY DIDN'T. In the USA since 1790 every decade a Census of the population was Constitutionally mandated, and unborn humans have NEVER been counted. The SAME ancestors who wrote the Constitution and who conducted the first Census were also the ones who told us when not to count chickens.





jimmyjack quoted: "Their bodies EVEN AT THIS STAGE (6 months) are nothing more than stimulus/response biomachinery, perhaps comparable to a rat."

---and wrote: "Except, a more accurate analogy is like that of a man in a coma pending consciousness, since they are both human species and are pending consciousness, your analogy is immensely poor."

UTTERLY FALSE. The unconscious adult human has not lost the significant ABILITY to understand obscure things. (Haven't you read about such cases where TALKING to the unconscious person is REMEMBERED when re-awakening happens?) Only the CONSCIOUS USE of that ability is lost (hopefully temporarily). Meanwhile, both an unborn human and a rat DON'T HAVE the ability in the first place, neither consciously nor subconsciously. YOUR analogy is the "immensely poor" analogy.




jimmyjack quoted: "If someone takes a sledgehammer to a complicated machine like your car, do you say that the car has experienced cruelty?"

--and wrote: "Well the analogy stinks because you are not even comparing life to life, you compare humans to cars and that is a weak analogy if ever I saw one, you are creating a habit for this."

That analogy had the perfectly VALID purpose of showing that cruelty is a SUBJECTIVE thing, not an objective thing. Let's see....little boys sometimes catch flies and pull their wings off. This is CALLED cruel and the boys are made to stop. Why is it cruel? Certainly the flies have been given a significant disability for no good reason. (There is a bad joke, that the animal is no longer a "fly". It is a "walk".) Anyway, wanton destruction for no good reason is considered bad regardless of whether it is also cruel. What does the FLY "think"? We don't know. But have you ever SEEN a wingless fly? I have, and the way it walked around looked absolutely no different from the way flies with wings normally walk around, after landing on something. As a pure stimulus/response biomachine, a fly cannot possibly understand "cruel". Whether or not it even understands pain may be debate-able. But no need to debate it, I agree with the "wanton desctruction for no good reason" statement, as a good enough reason to contiune stopping little boys from pulling wings off flies.



jimmyjack quoted: "Isn't a SLOW death cruel, when compared to a quick death? Then why are you claiming cruelty when abortion has the purpose of killing as quickly as possible?"

--and wrote: "Burning in saltwater is not quick, yet it is sure as hell a cruel way to kill your own son or daughter."

I think I might agree with that. But salt water is NOT the only way unborn humans are killed Some methods are bound to be less cruel. Is there no research going on, to find faster/less-cruel methods?




jimmyjack quoted: " Your statement merely reveals ignorance of facts and bad logic, standar hallmarks of EVERY anti-abortion argument."

--and wrote: "My argument has complete logic, and it makes sense, your perspective is distorted, much like Hitler’s was towards the Jews."

UTTERLY FALSE. As shown above. YOUR prejudice is distorting your view of humans, claiming mindless animals to be equivalent to strong-minded persons. And since prejudice is irrational, it follows that any "logic" based on prejudice is equally irrational, senseless and worthless. EXACTLY like Hitler's ravings about Jews.


jimmyjack also wrote: "Well the population is predicted to decline in the near future, and many countries need a population boom in order to stave off bankruptcy, the United States amongst the most desperate, so I think the bad logic and ignorance award is well and truly yours and the hypocrisy medal is the jewel in the crown."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Bankruptcy is NOTHING compared to the Malthusean Catastrophe YOU are pushing for, which will cause 99% of all humans will die. As has already happened in human history on Easter Island (we are NOT immune to predictions made based on ANIMAL behavior; the E.I. population crashed from 20,000 to 200 in a wave of cannibalism). Easter Island is fair warning that overpopulation is idiotically stupid. Ignoring it is pure ignorance, and denying it is bad logic. Bankruptcy is survivable. Overpopulation isn't (for 99%). And the hypocrisy medal is all yours, for using a "value of human life" argument to lead most of the species to death.


{continued next message}
 
Last edited:

FutureIncoming

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
{continued from message #11}



jimmyjack also wrote: "You need to learn that a mosquito is destroyed because it usually invades the body of a human without invitation."

I already knew that.

--and wrote: "Whereas most pregnancies happen because a human has forced another human to exist within them,"

THE OUTRIGHT LIE REPEATED, remains an outright lie. As explained earlier.

--and wrote: "the human that perpetrated the force often destroys the offspring purely for convenience."

This may be true, but ALSO it is true that Free Will trumps Natural Mindless Biology. Are YOU a slave to Natural Mindless Biology? Why should anyone who has Free Will submit to Natural Mindless Biology, when it's not necessary? THAT'S why the mosquito gets swatted. IT is Natural Mindless Biology in action, interfering with our convenience.


jimmyjack also wrote: "Furthermore, the difference with killing a human and a mosquito is completely different,"

DUH????? A redundancy is not an explanation. Both the unborn human and the mosquito are animals with NONE of the significant mental abilities of persons. THAT'S A MEASURABLE FACT.

--and wrote; "so the fact that you find it difficult to perceive this huge difference in species is no surprise."

Species is irrelevant to personhood. That's why we must be prepared, to act rationally, should a flying saucer land and an extremely repulsive-looking but friendly alien emerge. Only persons need ALWAYS matter to other persons. Mere animals only matter when they are in danger of extinction, and we recognize it is better to have them around and not need them, than to need them (for a cancer cure, say) and find them to be extinct..




jimmyjack quoted: "You ARE promoting slavery of Free-Willed women to mindless animals, don't you realize that?"

--and wrote: "Slavery involved the killing of humans and the removal of rights"

DUH, after they are dead they cannot be slaves. Where ARE you getting such stupidity?

--and wrote: "because some people thought they where more important then other people, just as people are still doing"

YES, prejudice has been a problem among human persons for millenia.

--and wrote: "today, all that has changed is that the one without rights and consider
ed subhuman are those in the womb."

FALSE. An unborn human is a PERFECTLY human animal. "subhuman" does not apply. But what does apply is "nonperson", simply because IN MEASURABLE FACT an unborn human has none of the mental abilities of persons. "without rights" also applies, simply because animals are not granted rights (except when species-extinction beomes likely). Only persons are routinely granted rights. Thereby making the killing of an extremely repulsive alien murder, while the killing of an unborn is not murder. Of course.


jimmyjack also wrote: "When abortion is perceived by the masses as genocide, there will be another ethical group or minority waiting to receive mans inhumanity."

Why should a LIE be accepted by the masses? Unborn humans have NO "ethnicity" different from their parents. And more than 100 million pregnancies every year worldwide makes the group of unborn humans NOT much of a "minority". AND since "genocide" only applies to attempted extermination of an entire group, THAT WORD DOES NOT APPLY to unborn humans. A very large percentage of pregnancies are never even at risk for abortion.




"jimmyjack quoted: "Morals" are ARBITRARY, being different in different cultures."

--and wrote: "Then you would have no problem with making abortion illegal, since “Morals” are arbitrary as you say."

I DO have a problem with Person A arbitrarily declaring that Person A's morals must be followed by Person B. In making abortion illegal on moral grounds, you would be doing exactly that. But in keeping abortion legal/optional, Person A, who doesn't like abortion, never need seek one, EXACTLY as if was illegal for Person A. And Person B, who might choose to seek an abortion, is not forcing any actions or anti-actions OR any change in morals upon Person A.




jimmyjack also wrote: "When you prove a foetus is not a person then I will take up the challenge."

That was more-or-less done above, in which it was sort-of stated that unborn humans exhibit NONE of the characteristics that might be used to distinguish any sort of person from any sort of animal, anywhere.

jimmyjack also wrote: "After all it is you that wants to kill them, not me, the onus is on you."

ACTUALLY, in debates the onus of proof falls upon the one who makes a positive statement, not a negative statement. It is MUCH easier to prove a positive than a negative. So, since YOU are one claiming that unborn humans are persons, the onus of proving that is rightfully all yours.


jimmyjack also wrote: "Look at your average dictionary, it says: a human is a person; therefore an unborn is a person because it is a human."

Dictionaries don't know everything, AND they often are out-of-step with the times. TWO facts: A few centuries ago, before any dictionaries existed, there were places where humans took VERY SERIOUSLY certain superstitions centered on "little people". While such entities are considered fictional today, the POINT here is that those "little people" were described as being NON-human PERSONS. Why wasn't this point of English Language, that people/persons can also be nonhumans, put in the dictionaries? Prejudice, maybe? Or merely the discounting of superstitions? Note that the U.S. Constitution, written in the same era as the first dictionaries, includes the word "person" many many times, and the word "human" NOT ONCE. The USA is legally prepared to accommodate ANY entity that qualifies as a person. (I ask you to recall chickens and the Census and nonpersons.) Well, dictionaries are about LANGUAGE AS USED, not about the opinions of the editors regarding what usages are appropriate. THAT'S why dictionaries tend to be out-of-step with the times. So consider THIS:

1. The English language allows for both specific and generic designations.
2. Any language tends to evolve, depending mostly on what percentage of its speaking population embraces a particular linguistic change.
3. The word "person" in English has traditionally been synonymous with the word "human", such that even dictionaries note it.
4. Recent widespread linguistic usage of "person" (in decades of science fiction) has carried the word to a widely accepted and more generic level, such that it can also be applied as a designator of non-human organisms which are equivalent in certain respects to humans.
5. The word "person" has NEVER acquired any meaning which allows it to be applied as a designator of ordinary animals.
6. Logically, we now need to know exactly how the word "person" can designate humans and human-equivalent non-human organisms, but never animals.
7. Once #6 has been accomplished, to specify a dividing line between persons and animals, and recognizing the biological fact that the human body is 100% an animal body, logic inexoribly concludes that the normal and complete process of human biological growth starts out on the pure-animal side of the dividing line, and ends up on the person-qualifying side of the dividing line.
8. In other words, #7 is saying that there will be no way humans below a certain developmental stage, depending on #6, can continue to be assigned the traditional designation of "person".
9. Therefore no one, in this era of the English language, can aribitrarily confer "personhood" upon all humans.".
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
FISHX said:
Great to see you jimmy;)

Guys i really don,t see how having a link in your siggy can be classed as spamming it isn,t as though he has posted the link and nothing else is it.

Well, if you'd bothered to read his very first post in this very thread, you'd see that he included links at the very beginning of his post, and then again at the end. Those would not be a part of his signature, and they were not included to be sources, therefore, they are pointless spamming links.
 

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
INAPPLICABLE. No unborn human qualifies for "person" status,
Woe! Stop your twittering right there, do not go any further!

What proof do you have?

Here's mine:

per·son (pûr'sən) pronunciation
n.

1. A living human

www.answers.com
 
Last edited:

FISHX

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Location
uk
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Stace said:
Well, if you'd bothered to read his very first post in this very thread, you'd see that he included links at the very beginning of his post, and then again at the end. Those would not be a part of his signature, and they were not included to be sources, therefore, they are pointless spamming links.

Sorry posting a link twice in one post does not constitute spamming.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
FISHX said:
Sorry posting a link twice in one post does not constitute spamming.

In this case, yes, it does. There is no valid reason for those links to be a part of that post. He is not citing the website, has not used it as a source.....there is just no reason for it to be there.

And quite honestly, I don't see why YOU'RE getting so defensive over it.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Stace said:
In this case, yes, it does. There is no valid reason for those links to be a part of that post. He is not citing the website, has not used it as a source.....there is just no reason for it to be there.

And quite honestly, I don't see why YOU'RE getting so defensive over it.
Because they are both from that british pro-life, censorship-prone site
 

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
In this case, yes, it does. There is no valid reason for those links to be a part of that post. He is not citing the website, has not used it as a source.....there is just no reason for it to be there.

And quite honestly, I don't see why YOU'RE getting so defensive over it.
spam (spăm) pronunciation
n.

Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.

www.answers.com

So you are wrong it is not spam because it is not email.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Per forum rules:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=505

2. Spamming - What constitutes spamming can be, but is not limited to, "A message (typically an advertisement) sent indiscriminately to a wide set of discussion lists [forums] or newsgroups."[google] Also, any message or series of messages promoting a product, site or service made by a member who does not demonstrate the intention and willingness to participate in the normal discourse of the DPMB can be considered spamming. Spamming will not be tolerated and can result in immediate banning of the spammer.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
jimmyjack said:
spam (spăm) pronunciation
n.

Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.

www.answers.com

So you are wrong it is not spam because it is not email.
That is but one definition. Spamming is not limited to email, which you would know if you did your research.
 

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
INAPPLICABLE. No unborn human qualifies for "person" status,
What proof do you have?

EXCEPT through prejudice and/or hypocrisy. See the challenge in my signature area? THINK about it. On what grounds could an Artificial Intelligence be called a person and not "just a machine"? It would have to exhibit certain mental abilities that NO typical animal can match, wouldn't it?
How does a man in a coma have these qualities you speak of?

Well, NO unborn human has those mental abilities, either! So, by not qualifying as people, the law against killing people would make it murder to unplug that Artificial Intelligence, but not murder to abort unborn human ANIMALS.
What you speak of can be turned on again, think about it.

Oh, I agree completely, BUT ADULT HUMANS (most of them) ARE MORE THAN ONLY ANIMALS. They DO have the mental abilities that distinguish them as persons.
How does a man in a coma possess these abilities? Ability means to be able; a man in a coma is not able to do anything, you would surely agree?

Humans in comas have NOT **LOST** their mental abilities. Those abilities are merely inactive while the comas persist.
Is that true even if they never regain consciousness? -Obviously not.

However, humans with sufficiently significant brain damage (the "brain dead" on life support) HAVE **LOST** their mental abilities. They no longer qualify as persons, and are mere animal bodies ONLY. Do you understand the distinction now?
So you agree that a foetus will gain consciousness it is just a matter of time, just as we wait for a man in a coma to return to consciousness, and if this waiting sees no improvement we can deem them as “brain dead” but only after a prolonged wait should this be done.

Before moving to the next thing you wrote, I need to address one particular STUPIDITY that you are implying. THE LACK OF A RIGHT-TO-LIFE IS ***NOT*** THE SAME THING AS AN AUTOMATIC DEATH PENALTY. Your average anthill does not have right-to-life, AND we do not typically go out of our way to stomp the average anthill. See? SO, a severely retarded adult human is one with no more mental abilities than an ordinary animal, and hence does not qualify for person status and need not be granted right-to-life.
That sounds like Nazis talk.

However, the presence of that human may be WANTED. If those who do the wanting also are willing to do the supporting, there is no problem. Remember that PETS are only animals, not persons, and so they do not have right-to-life either. But they are often wanted, an so are not usually killed arbitrarily. The unborn humans who are aborted are all UNwanted animals. The wanted ones are born and raised, usually to "person" status.
Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms.

There is no IQ tests required in order to define someone as a person, nor is a man who nobody wants any less of a person, and this certainly does not grant people the right to kill him merely for being unwanted.

As just explained above, I am not the one spouting idiotic stupidities.
Newsflash: Newborns cannot compromise.

BAD LOGIC. Some parasites DO take the lives of their hosts, and some don't. It is well-documented that unborn humans sometimes are indeed parasites of the deadly variety.
So do some adult humans, is that a reason for killing them?

So shall we make it illegal for a foetus to feed on his or her mother? We would also have to ban breast feeding too.


But that aspect of parasitism is not as relevant as the fact of the parasitism. If a parasite latches onto YOU, do you let it or resist it? MOST humans would resist it, even knowing that unlatching it would be the death of it. But then, all known parasites are mindless animals, stimulus/response bio-machines. Their deaths are basically insignificant. NEXT, Life is something that "just happens". Evolutionists are still studying the details, but they are confident their basic facts of the matter are accurate. AND DEATH CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, TOO
Stop! We are talking about humans, the ones that are put there deliberately by other humans, so they cannot be considered parasites first and foremost. A parasite is uninvited; a foetus has to be deliberately put there.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

As an analogy, consider a lightning strike. It may hit rocks or sandy soil, and nothing much happens afterward. Or it may hit vegetation and start fire. Was this fire "forced" or did it "just happen"? Certainly the lightning, the cause of the fire, "just happened", so full consideration of the cause-and-effect chain-of-events should lead us to say that the fire "just happened", also, even if only indirectly. So, we have this fire, a pseudo-living thing, doing what all fires do, trying to consume everything it can get at. Nature has been dealing with fires for more than half-a-billion years, and some trees NEED fire in order to reproduce successfully. Then humans came along and arbitrarily, subjectively, used their mental abilities to decide that some fires were good and desirable, and some fires were bad and undesirable. Making decisions is just one of those things that persons DO. WHO ARE YOU TO INTERFERE in the choices of others, regarding parasitic life-forms they might consider undesirable?
Do you not see that you are interfering with the choices of others in the womb, by removing every single choice they have?

Who are you to completely remove the lives of other people? What you are doing is far more fundamentally destructive.

The right to: choose or the right to: live, what is the more fundamental? We cannot survive if we remove the right to live; your argument is completely flawed.

IT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE to claim that every unborn human exists deliberately.
It seems a bit strange that the sperm can arrive from the testis of a man and into a woman all by accident.

There is actually good logic to support the opposite claim, that NO unborn human EVER existed deliberately (except maybe Jesus). Are you not aware that roughly 1/7 of all human couples are infertile? ALL THEIR REPRODUCTION-DELIBERATIONS AMOUNT TO NOTHING. Which fundamentally means that human fertility is **NOT** directly subject to human Will/deliberateness. NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY is in charge of whether or not unborn humans exist, just like Natural Mindless Physics is in charge of whether or not lightning starts a fire.
You need to learn about the birds and the bees.

So, no woman can decide whether she wants to conceive natrally? Does it just happen? Grow up!

I was analogizing hatching with birthing. If normal birth occurs (and I'll throw in Cesarean sections just so we don't argue about it), then you have a baby. Before then, all you have is a likely possibility of a baby. Which you shouldn't count because it might be stillborn. And FYI, fertilized human eggs DO hatch days AFTER conception; see this link: http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm The hatching process sometimes splits the emerging bunch-of-stem-cells, leading to twins.
No points, a sperm must penetrate the egg first and foremost, thus hatching the egg.

I see your delusion perfectly. You somehow think that human actions are not Natural, even though humans, like beavers, are products of Nature. Beaver dams are Natural but human dams aren't? MORE idiotic stupidity. A human shooing a fly is as Natural as a horse swishing its tail for the same purpose. A farmer butchering a hog is as Natural as a pod of killer whales feasting on a blue. Therefore your statement, "deliberately killing humans must never be acceptable" IS PURE PREJUDICE. Not to mention you are saying that if a terrorist shoots at you, you are not allowed to shoot back. Terrorists are those who, to paraphrase an idiom, "live by the gun", and hence are Traditionally allowed to "die by the gun". WHOSE gun shouldn't matter. The problem with your statement is that it is UNSUPPORTED AND NOT PRECISE. What you SHOULD have written is something like, "persons should generally not kill other persons, because they are thereby generally inviting their own deaths (although exceptions do happen)". In this way we can hope to avert an interstellar war with nohumans who we might happen to look ugly (and who probably in turn would think we look ugly). Persons can UNDERSTAND things like The Golden Rule. Unborn humans, however, understand absolutely nothing. That is why they are not persons and that is why they need not be included in guidelines for persons.
You have completely misunderstood me; I will put it in a more simplified way for you, there is a difference in killing someone and someone dying through ill health. Can you see that?

I'm waiting for a pro-lifer to successfully take up this challenge:
"Define "person" to be Universally accurate, regardless of physical nature, to distinguish people from mere animals, anywhere.
I'm waiting for a pro-abortionist to successfully take up this challenge:

Prove a foetus is not a person.

After all it is you that wants to kill it, not me.
 

jimmyjack

Banned
Joined
Jul 2, 2005
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
1
Location
U.K England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
That is but one definition. Spamming is not limited to email, which you would know if you did your research.
At least I have provided one, where is yours?

As it stands I have backed up my claim, you have not.

So, again it is not spamming.
 
Last edited:

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jimmyjack said:
How does a man in a coma possess these abilities? Ability means to be able; a man in a coma is not able to do anything, you would surely agree?



Is that true even if they never regain consciousness? -Obviously not.



So you agree that a foetus will gain consciousness it is just a matter of time, just as we wait for a man in a coma to return to consciousness, and if this waiting sees no improvement we can deem them as “brain dead” but only after a prolonged wait should this be done.



That sounds like Nazis talk.
Invoking Godwin's Law are you?

jimmyjack said:
Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms.

There is no IQ tests required in order to define someone as a person, nor is a man who nobody wants any less of a person, and this certainly does not grant people the right to kill him merely for being unwanted.



Newsflash: Newborns cannot compromise.



So do some adult humans, is that a reason for killing them?

So shall we make it illegal for a foetus to feed on his or her mother? We would also have to ban breast feeding too.




Stop! We are talking about humans, the ones that are put there deliberately by other humans, so they cannot be considered parasites first and foremost. A parasite is uninvited; a foetus has to be deliberately put there.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
Define 'deliberately. Those that want to have kids 'deliberately' do so if they can.


jimmyjack said:
Do you not see that you are interfering with the choices of others in the womb, by removing every single choice they have?
Embryos do not have choices. Choice is the result of conscious decision. You're talking through an orifice not designed for speech here.
jimmyjack said:
Who are you to completely remove the lives of other people? What you are doing is far more fundamentally destructive.
No one here is advocating removing lives of 'other people'. Quote one person who has and I will certainly apologize.
jimmyjack said:
The right to: choose or the right to: live, what is the more fundamental? We cannot survive if we remove the right to live; your argument is completely flawed.
There is no 'right to live'. Life is random and nature does not give rights. Those are under the the onus of man-made law. Now, you don't have the right to end a living breathing man's life, but that's not the issue here.


jimmyjack said:
It seems a bit strange that the sperm can arrive from the testis of a man and into a woman all by accident.
Condoms break....sheesh.

jimmyjack said:
You need to learn about the birds and the bees.

So, no woman can decide whether she wants to conceive natrally? Does it just happen? Grow up!



No points, a sperm must penetrate the egg first and foremost, thus hatching the egg.



You have completely misunderstood me; I will put it in a more simplified way for you, there is a difference in killing someone and someone dying through ill health. Can you see that?
What you fail to 'see' is the distinction between wanted and unwanted, breathing and not breathing, dependent and not dependent, choice and anti-choice. You also fail to see the difference between killing a person and ending an unwanted pregnancy. One is illegal, one is not. One is a personal choice of no consequence to you. One might very well BE you.


jimmyjack said:
I'm waiting for a pro-abortionist to successfully take up this challenge:

Prove a foetus is not a person.
Don't wait too long. There is no pro-abortionist in this forum. Prove THAT.
jimmyjack said:
After all it is you that wants to kill it, not me.
Not one person here wants to kill anything but your juvenile diatribes. Prove otherwise.
 
Top Bottom