• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

FISHX said:
where the hell did you get that from?

I am not british i am english i am not of mixed race i am english my mother is english my father was english as were all my ancestors tracked right back to the 1700,s

English = born on the main land of england.

And vergiss what are you ? an aborigine because only aborigone,s are truley australian

Riiiiiight. What's a Briton, then? :roll:

What the hell does Australia have to do with any of this?
 
In Message #22, jimmyjack replied to some of the stuff in Message #10, apparently without reading Messages #11 and #12. If jimmyjack had read those messages, some of the questions asked in Message #22 would have been answered. Here I shall deal with questions not answered in Message #11 or #12.


jimmyjack quoted:: "the law against killing people would make it murder to unplug that Artificial Intelligence"

--and wrote: "What you speak of can be turned on again, think about it."

Ah, but you cannot be sure the EXACT SAME artificial intelligence will come into existence as before. There is a HUGE set of random factors associated with the process of SELF-PROGRAMMING which is one of the things that persons can do that animals can't (your brain is like a computer, and every habit you create for yourself is exactly a computer program, a sequence of actions to perform --and you can edit or replace those habits, too, also exactly like computer programming). You created many unique programs while growing; an electronics-based artificial intelligence can create unique programs a million times faster. Every time it "boots up", therefore, it can have created an all-new set of unique programs. Which means unplugging it IS killing that uniqueness. And since we are talking about the very sophisticated programs associated with person-class mental abilities such as Free Will, advanced empathy, and symbol-abstraction/manipulation, unplugging an AI is the killing of a person that you CANNOT be sure would be restored by plugging it back in. Note that if you added hardware to retain programs while the power is off, and write mandatory code to execute those programs on re-boot, you are then REDUCING the AI's ability to program itself, thereby perhaps disqualifying it as a person! As a possibly-relevant example, consider those "life after life" cases where humans have died on the operating table, and came back to life after maybe half-an-hour of work by the doctors. ALL of them claim to have become changed persons!



jimmyjack wrote: "Ability means to be able; a man in a coma is not able to do anything, you would surely agree?"

You are confusing "ability" with "functioning". Does a doctor cease to be a doctor while asleep? How about a tennis player in-flight between tournaments? If a concert pianist happens to be drinking at a pub where no piano is present, has the pianist lost the abiltiy to play? In all these examples only FUNCTIONING in certain ways is impossible. Ability persists. So, with this distinction in mind, it is completely true and accurate to say that no unborn human can function like a person because it has NO ABILITY to function like a person. The man in a coma HAS the ability, even if the coma persists for the rest of his life.





jimmyjack wrote: "So you agree that a foetus will gain consciousness it is just a matter of time,"

Actually a human fetus of eight or nine months IS able to exhibit consciousness; brainwave measurements clearly indicate an awake/sleeping cycle. But due to total brainpower available to that fetus, its consciousness is ONLY ANIMAL LEVEL. Not person-level.
NEXT, you are attempting to invoke "potential". Certainly the average human fetus has the potential to grow mentally, eventually to the level of personhood. However, THIS IS NOT A MANDATORY THING. **YOU** have the potential to trip in the street and be run over by a truck, right? Does that potential HAVE to be fulfilled? No, because NO potential has to be fulfilled! Including fetal growth!



jimmyjack also wrote: "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.

FALSE. Brain-death is determined by measuring essentially zero brain activity. Humans in ordinary comas usually exhibit some activity (it is known that they CAN hear others talking to them, something that REQUIRES a certain amount of brain activity). Consider a boxer who has been KO'd in the ring. He is in a state much closer to a coma than sleep. The brain includes a "reset/reboot" system and after a time of unconsciousness, the boxer awakens and gets up. In the case of a coma victim who never wakes up, it may be that the reboot system is damaged., even while the rest of the brain is functional. In the case of the brain-dead, much more than the reboot system is nonfunctional. The ONLY reason we wait a long time before taking the brain-dead off life support is because of hope. We DO know, after all, about those cases who were clinically dead (no brain activity) on the operating table, but didn't stay that way. But we ALSO know that just because their brains were OFF, that doesn't mean they were actually dead/nonfunctional. Short of a real miracle, a violation of known physical laws, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an actually-dead brain to restart its operating system. What we cannot quickly know about the zero-brain-activity human on life support is just how much actual brain damage exists. That is why we can hope for the best. For a time. A time that can be limited by the time it takes to prepare and process and analyze MRI brain scans. Then most of the damage can be KNOWN.



jimmyjack wrote: "That sounds like Nazis talk."

Tsk tsk. I see you SPLIT a paragraph in order to insert that statement, JUST BEFORE THAT PARAGRAPH'S OWN DISCLAIMER. Anyone comparing Message #22 with the original text in Message #10 can see what I'm talking about. All you have done is make yourself look stupid to everyone else here.




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

TRUE. AND they can define, AND HAVE defined, "persons" to include more than humans only. Which AUTOMATICALLY means that "humans" and "persons" are two different things, and not the same things.


jimmyjack also wrote: "There is no IQ tests required in order to define someone as a person,"

IQ is not particularly relevant to determining personhood. One facet of personhood is "advanced empathy", to the extent that you can imagine yourself in the situation of another. No ordinary animal can do this, nor is this tested-for on IQ examinations. Just like Free Will isn't tested-for, either. An IQ test DOES measure magnitude of ability to do symbol-abstraction/manipulation, but if you can so much as understand the concept of an IQ test, then you already qualify for that aspect of personhood!


jimmyjack quoted: 'The unborn humans who are aborted are all UNwanted animals. The wanted ones are born and raised, usually to "person" status"

--and wrote: "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."

INAPPLICABLE. I clearly wrote about unwanted humans who do not qualify for person status. YOUR faulty belief about humans-as-persons does not change the FACTS that unborn humans do not have any ability to function as persons, EXACTLY as ordinary nonhuman animals do not have any ability to function as persons, while nonhuman entities ranging from Artificial Intelligences to God WILL have the abiltiy to function as persons, if only they existed. It is BECAUSE nonhumans are allowed to be persons that some humans can in Measurable Scientific Fact fail to be persons! DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, "humans" and "persons" are! (AND they have been different concepts ever since notions of "little people" --to say nothing of God, angels, and demons-- were taken seriously. Despite the incompleteness of dictionaries.)



jimmyjack wrote: "Newsflash: Newborns cannot compromise."

TRUE. They ALSO don't qualify for person status, either, as herein described (and if you dislike my chosen identifiers for personhood, such that personable nonhuman aliens can always be distinguished from mere alien animals, feel free to take on the challenge in my signature). AND newborn humans also are more often wanted than not, which is why they are seldom abandoned.



jimmyjack quoted: "It is well-documented that unborn humans sometimes are indeed parasites of the deadly variety."

--and wrote: "So do some adult humans, is that a reason for killing them?"

We DO execute various parasitic adult humans, such as "serial killers".

--and wrote: "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."

NOT NECESSARY. It already is illegal, isn't it, for YOU to go up to some random lactating woman and feed from her breasts without her permission? The same logic applies to any other unpermitted breast-feeder, AND to any fetus who does not have permission to feed inside a womb.


{continued in another message. this one was split in two but the second half was lost in a software crash, and so that half must be recreated from scratch. later}
 
Last edited:
vergiss said:
Riiiiiight. What's a Briton, then?

There is actualy no such thing as a britian in the british isles you are either english, irish, scottish or welsh .

The only true britians are from france ie born in britany
 
There is a HUGE set of random factors associated with the process of SELF-PROGRAMMING which is one of the things that persons can do that animals can't (your brain is like a computer, and every habit you create for yourself is exactly a computer program, a sequence of actions to perform --and you can edit or replace those habits, too, also exactly like computer programming). You created many unique programs while growing; an electronics-based artificial intelligence can create unique programs a million times faster. Every time it "boots up", therefore, it can have created an all-new set of unique programs. Which means unplugging it IS killing that uniqueness. And since we are talking about the very sophisticated programs associated with person-class mental abilities such as Free Will, advanced empathy, and symbol-abstraction/manipulation, unplugging an AI is the killing of a person that you CANNOT be sure would be restored by plugging it back in. Note that if you added hardware to retain programs while the power is off, and write mandatory code to execute those programs on re-boot, you are then REDUCING the AI's ability to program itself, thereby perhaps disqualifying it as a person! As a possibly-relevant example, consider those "life after life" cases where humans have died on the operating table, and came back to life after maybe half-an-hour of work by the doctors. ALL of them claim to have become changed persons!

It can always be turned on again, fool!

Besides, I doubt you are even qualified to speak in this area; there is no such thing as AI, so it is not even possible that such a thing can exist, as yet. When such a thing exists then you can talk about it, until then keep to the real world.

You are confusing "ability" with "functioning". Does a doctor cease to be a doctor while asleep?

Exactly! This is my point!

How about a tennis player in-flight between tournaments? If a concert pianist happens to be drinking at a pub where no piano is present, has the pianist lost the abiltiy to play? In all these examples only FUNCTIONING in certain ways is impossible.

So a human is a person regardless of functionality.

Ability persists. So, with this distinction in mind, it is completely true and accurate to say that no unborn human can function like a person because it has NO ABILITY to function like a person. The man in a coma HAS the ability, even if the coma persists for the rest of his life.

That is a complete contradiction! If I cut your legs off do you still have the ability to walk, even if you remain legless for the rest of your life?

A man in a coma has no ability, because ability means to be able. The man is incapacitated, because he doesn’t possess the capacity to do anything.

Actually a human fetus of eight or nine months IS able to exhibit consciousness; brainwave measurements clearly indicate an awake/sleeping cycle. But due to total brainpower available to that fetus, its consciousness is ONLY ANIMAL LEVEL. Not person-level.

Just like the man in the coma.

NEXT, you are attempting to invoke "potential". Certainly the average human fetus has the potential to grow mentally, eventually to the level of personhood. However, THIS IS NOT A MANDATORY THING. **YOU** have the potential to trip in the street and be run over by a truck, right? Does that potential HAVE to be fulfilled? No, because NO potential has to be fulfilled! Including fetal growth!

For me to be run over, it would be an unexpected event, for a foetus to grow is not unexpected, it is what we expect.

FALSE. Brain-death is determined by measuring essentially zero brain activity. Humans in ordinary comas usually exhibit some activity (it is known that they CAN hear others talking to them, something that REQUIRES a certain amount of brain activity). Consider a boxer who has been KO'd in the ring. He is in a state much closer to a coma than sleep. The brain includes a "reset/reboot" system and after a time of unconsciousness, the boxer awakens and gets up. In the case of a coma victim who never wakes up, it may be that the reboot system is damaged., even while the rest of the brain is functional. In the case of the brain-dead, much more than the reboot system is nonfunctional. The ONLY reason we wait a long time before taking the brain-dead off life support is because of hope.

Then why not wait for a foetus with the same hope?

We DO know, after all, about those cases who were clinically dead (no brain activity) on the operating table, but didn't stay that way. But we ALSO know that just because their brains were OFF, that doesn't mean they were actually dead/nonfunctional. Short of a real miracle, a violation of known physical laws, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an actually-dead brain to restart its operating system. What we cannot quickly know about the zero-brain-activity human on life support is just how much actual brain damage exists. That is why we can hope for the best. For a time. A time that can be limited by the time it takes to prepare and process and analyze MRI brain scans. Then most of the damage can be KNOWN.

So you would agree that once a unique person has been determined as having no chance of life, then and only then is it ethical to claim they are dead, but if a human is still alive (like a foetus), to end their life is totally unethical, since we should never intervene in another persons life if there is still a chance of life, regardless of brain activity. Since, some people who die have been known to come back to life after being dead.

Tsk tsk. I see you SPLIT a paragraph in order to insert that statement, JUST BEFORE THAT PARAGRAPH'S OWN DISCLAIMER. Anyone comparing Message #22 with the original text in Message #10 can see what I'm talking about. All you have done is make yourself look stupid to everyone else here.

Elucidate.

TRUE. AND they can define, AND HAVE defined, "persons" to include more than humans only. Which AUTOMATICALLY means that "humans" and "persons" are two different things, and not the same things.

If they are two different things and are not the same, it would be false to say that people are humans, and that is just plain old stupid, because people are humans.

IQ is not particularly relevant to determining personhood. One facet of personhood is "advanced empathy", to the extent that you can imagine yourself in the situation of another. No ordinary animal can do this, nor is this tested-for on IQ examinations. Just like Free Will isn't tested-for, either. An IQ test DOES measure magnitude of ability to do symbol-abstraction/manipulation, but if you can so much as understand the concept of an IQ test, then you already qualify for that aspect of personhood!

How does a new born child do those things? Or a man in a coma?

INAPPLICABLE. I clearly wrote about unwanted humans who do not qualify for person status.

When you prove a foetus is not a person, then you can apply this argument.

YOUR faulty belief about humans-as-persons does not change the FACTS that unborn humans do not have any ability to function as persons,

Neither does a man in a coma.

EXACTLY as ordinary nonhuman animals do not have any ability to function as persons, while nonhuman entities ranging from Artificial Intelligences to God WILL have the abiltiy to function as persons, if only they existed. It is BECAUSE nonhumans are allowed to be persons that some humans can in Measurable Scientific Fact fail to be persons! DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, "humans" and "persons" are! (AND they have been different concepts ever since notions of "little people" --to say nothing of God, angels, and demons-- were taken seriously. Despite the incompleteness of dictionaries.)

What is a person?

TRUE. They ALSO don't qualify for person status, either, as herein described (and if you dislike my chosen identifiers for personhood, such that personable nonhuman aliens can always be distinguished from mere alien animals, feel free to take on the challenge in my signature). AND newborn humans also are more often wanted than not, which is why they are seldom abandoned.

So then you are saying we can kill newborns without it constituting murder.

We DO execute various parasitic adult humans, such as "serial killers".

Do we kill adult conjoined twins too?

NOT NECESSARY. It already is illegal, isn't it, for YOU to go up to some random lactating woman and feed from her breasts without her permission? The same logic applies to any other unpermitted breast-feeder, AND to any fetus who does not have permission to feed inside a womb.

Yes, but we don’t kill people for breast feeding without permission, do we?
 
{this Message continues where #52 left off, in responding to Message #22}



jimmyjack quoted: "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 wrote: 'Stop! We are talking about humans, the ones that are put there deliberately by other humans,"

YOU PERSISTENCE IN RESTATING AN OUTRIGHT LIE DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS A LIE. I see I need to say more about this a little farther down.

--and wrote: "so they cannot be considered parasites first and foremost."

FALSE. As long as they act like parasites, they can be called parasites. NO EXCEPTIONS.

--and wrote: "A parasite is uninvited"

FALSE. There are occasions where parasites ARE invited. In the early part of the 20th Century, for example, there was a fad that involved swallowing a tapeworm. They digest some of the food you eat, helping you to stay thin.... Then there are "gangrene maggots", which TODAY are being invited into rotting tissue to EAT that tissue, and also help it to heal. And, of course, when a pregnancy is WANTED, THEN the parasitic developing human organism is indeed invited.


jimmyjack also wrote: "a foetus has to be deliberately put there."

THIS IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. NOTHING we can do can force an embryo to implant into a womb. The MOST that even in-vitro specialists can do is put an embyo into a womb, and HOPE it implants. It is the Natural Mindless Biology of the embryo and the womb that, by pure stimulus/response interaction, "decides" whether or not implantation will occur. DO keep in mind that about 1/7 of all couples are infertile, despite ALL their deliberateness to cause pregnancy. THAT ALONE IS THE PROOF THAT WHAT YOU WROTE IS TOTALLY WRONG.


jimmyjack also wrote: "DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"

I FULLY understand the extent that you have revealed your ignorance and delusion with respect to the abortion issue. And I'm doing what I can to correct those problems. All you need do is pay attention, of course.




jimmyjack quoted: "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?"

--and wrote: "Do you not see that you are interfering with the choices of others in the womb,"

I FULLY see that you are continuing to LIE about the occupants of wombs. THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO MAKE ANY CHOICES. All their actions are Natual Mindless Biological, they are pure stimulus/response bio-machines, pre-programmed by genetics.


jimmyjack also wrote: "by removing every single choice they have?"

Since they MEASURABLY have no ability to make choices, it is ALSO IMPOSSIBLE to deprive them of using an ability that does not exist. SIMPLE LOGIC.


jimmyjack also wrote: "Who are you to completely remove the lives of other people?"

Ah, but I am NOT talking about removing the lives of other PEOPLE. I am talking about removing the lives of PROVABLE ANIMALS. Your worthless opinions and inadequate dictionary definitions CANNOT give unborn humans ANY ability to function as persons function.


jimmyjack also wrote: "What you are doing is far more fundamentally destructive."

It is indeed destructive to abort unwanted human animal organisms. So ALSO is it destructive to kill flies, mosquitos, and the bull you might want to eat for dinner. but "fundamentally" destructive? HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Nonsense! There is NO shortage of unborn humans. If we were talking about destroying, say, Siberian Tigers, then YES, that could indeed be fundamentally destructive. That species is nearing extinction, and could be pushed over the brink.


jimmyjack also wrote: "The right to: choose or the right to: live, what is the more fundamental?"

YOUR IGNORANCE IS STILL BEING REVEALED. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT-TO-LIFE IN NATURE. For proof, just hold a lightning rod upward in your bare hands while walking a hill on a golf course in a thunderstorm. Then you can ask the first lighting bolt you encounter whether or not it respects your CLAIMED "right-to-life". Similarly, there ALSO is no "right-to-choose", but for a different reason. If the ABILITY to choose exists, THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY GETS USED during ordinary activities. It gets used whenever you create OR deviate from a habit, just for example, AND that ability is one of the defining characteristics of persons. IT IS PERSONS THAT USED POWER-OF-CHOICE TO **POLITICALLY** CREATE THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT-TO-LIFE. And that concept is extended to PERSONS, not to animals.


jimmyjack also wrote: "We cannot survive if we remove the right to live; your argument is completely flawed."

UTTERLY FALSE. We have EVIDENCE that YOU ARE WRONG. See, the concept of "right-to-live" is an ABSTRACT thing, and NO evidince of ANY abstract human thought is older than about 50,000 years -- but Anatomically Modern Humans (same genes as us today) are known to have existed/SURVIVED quite well for AT LEAST 50,000 years before then, before the first evidence of any abstract thinking appeared.




jimmyjack quoted: " IT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE to claim that every unborn human exists deliberately."

--and wrote: "It seems a bit strange that the sperm can arrive from the testis of a man and into a woman all by accident."

THAT IS NOT "EXISTENCE OF A HUMAN" that you are talking about there. Semen-injection and egg-fertilization are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And the second is NOT "forced" to happen, just because the first happens. A man with a low-enough sperm count is actually fairly unlikely to fertilize any eggs. Sperm CAN AND DO "miss the target" --which is why, of course, that the average man has a fairly large sperm count. TO INCREASE A PROBABILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS FORCING SOMETHING.



jimmyjack quoted: "NATURAL MINDLESS BIOLOGY is in charge of whether or not unborn humans exist"

--and wrote: "So, no woman can decide whether she wants to conceive natrally?"

She can decide to TRY. That does not mean she will succeed.

--and wrote: "Does it just happen?"

EXACTLY, when the Natural Mindless Biological probabilities interact to that conclusion. Egg-fertilization and womb-implantation does NOT happen JUST BECAUSE a woman might desire it to happen, AND it CAN happen IN SPITE of a woman desiring it NOT to happen. ISN'T IT LOGICAL THAT IF PREGNANCY COULD BE RELIABLY/DELIBERATELY CAUSED, THEN ALSO IT COULD BE RELIABLY/DELIBERATELY PREVENTED? Since the facts do not support the logic, the BASIS of the logic is false --and that basis is YOUR worthless notion that pregnacies are deliberate.




jummyjack quoted: "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."

--and wrote: "No points, a sperm must penetrate the egg first and foremost, thus hatching the egg."

UTTERLY FALSE. First, the sperm does not "penetrate" the egg so much as "get swallowed" by the egg. The egg has enough Natural Mindless Biological "Life" in it to interact with nearby sperm and, using various sensors and filters in those interactions, it is prepared for a stimulus/response sequence of events that brings the first sperm to pass the filters inside the egg. Second, if it was "hatched" in accordance with your ridiculous claim, LOTS OF SPERM could get inside the egg. THAT NEVER HAPPENS. (Or, if it does, the egg is destroyed in the invasion.) The FACT is, one of the very first events in the fertiliztion process is the SEALING of the egg, to keep out other sperm.




jimmyjack quoted: "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."

--and wrote: "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."

TRUE. There is indeed a difference between death-from-killing and death-by-other-means. No matter what organism experiences death. HOWEVER. FOR PERSONS ONLY, it is considered important that death-by-killing not occur. For animals, unless species-extinction is threatened, it is seldom considered important. (Even WHEN species-extinction happens, little fuss is raised. And so the Earth's Biosphere is in the middle of the biggest Mass Extinction Event since the end of the dinosaur age. ALL due to actions of Persons killing mindless animals and plants.)


jimmyjack also wrote: "Can you see that?"

I FULLY SEE that you still do not understand that "humans" and "persons" are two distinct concepts.




jimmyjack wrote: "Prove a foetus is not a person."

This has basically been done in postings I've added to this Thread, some of which (#11 and #12) you have failed to answer. THE KEY FACT/LOGIC IS THAT BECAUSE ENGLISH ALLOWS NONHUMANS TO BE CALLED PERSONS ("little people", God, angels, demons, etcetera), THAT AUTOMATICALLY MEANS THE CONCEPT OF "PERSON" IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CONCEPT OF "HUMAN".
 
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

As much as people try to paint me as a cookie cutter conservative, I disagree on this issue. Bad parents should not be forced to have children they did not mean to concieve, or should I say children should not be forced to be concieved from bad parents.

A fetus has no higher brain functions. It doesn't know pain or fear or death or love or sadness or anything else. What makes the death of a human tragic is the complex pain that person goes through when he/she dies, or the pain other people are put though because of that person's death.

I believe a fetus is not yet a person and that it is incapable of experiencing these complex levels of pain.

Abortions after a few months are I believe wrong because the fetus has formed a brain and can feel pain, but abortions early on I don't see a problem with... as long as they are a last resort and not used as a form of birth control.
 
YOU PERSISTENCE IN RESTATING AN OUTRIGHT LIE DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS A LIE. I see I need to say more about this a little farther down.

Just because you say so it doesn’t mean it is true either: Most dictionaries say a Person is a human, so give up, you loose.

FALSE. As long as they act like parasites, they can be called parasites. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Learn your basic Biology, a parasite is an organism that grows and feeds on or in a DIFFERENT organism. Go back to school young child:

par•a•site (păr'ə-sīt')
n.
1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

2. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

FALSE. There are occasions where parasites ARE invited. In the early part of the 20th Century,... blah, blah, blah, ... it to heal. And, of course, when a pregnancy is WANTED, THEN the parasitic developing human organism is indeed invited.

Then at this point it doesn’t constitute a parasite since a parasite is one that takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return, so obviously the tape worm is obviously making a useful return.

par•a•site (păr'ə-sīt')
n.
1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

2. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

THIS IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. NOTHING we can do can force an embryo to implant into a womb. The MOST that even in-vitro specialists can do is put an embyo into a womb, and HOPE it implants. It is the Natural Mindless Biology of the embryo and the womb that, by pure stimulus/response interaction, "decides" whether or not implantation will occur. DO keep in mind that about 1/7 of all couples are infertile, despite ALL their deliberateness to cause pregnancy. THAT ALONE IS THE PROOF THAT WHAT YOU WROTE IS TOTALLY WRONG.

With that logic I cannot deliberately kill you by playing Russian roulette, I think if I try often enough I will definitely kill you. So again grow up or go back to school.

I FULLY understand the extent that you have revealed your ignorance and delusion with respect to the abortion issue. And I'm doing what I can to correct those problems. All you need do is pay attention, of course.

You are the ignorant one.

I FULLY see that you are continuing to LIE about the occupants of wombs. THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO MAKE ANY CHOICES. All their actions are Natual Mindless Biological, they are pure stimulus/response bio-machines, pre-programmed by genetics.

So the choices you have now, would still exist even if you had been aborted? I don’t think so my friend.

Since they MEASURABLY have no ability to make choices, it is ALSO IMPOSSIBLE to deprive them of using an ability that does not exist. SIMPLE LOGIC.

So if I kill a man in a coma I have not taken his choices away have I, since at that point in time he could not make choices.

Ah, but I am NOT talking about removing the lives of other PEOPLE. I am talking about removing the lives of PROVABLE ANIMALS. Your worthless opinions and inadequate dictionary definitions CANNOT give unborn humans ANY ability to function as persons function.

Yes you are taking away the choice of other humans, who as most dictionaries define them are people. Besides, you are an animal, so what; it doesn’t stop you being a person, does it? Fool!

It is indeed destructive to abort unwanted human animal organisms. So ALSO is it destructive to kill flies, mosquitos, and the bull you might want to eat for dinner. but "fundamentally" destructive? HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Nonsense! There is NO shortage of unborn humans. If we were talking about destroying, say, Siberian Tigers, then YES, that could indeed be fundamentally destructive. That species is nearing extinction, and could be pushed over the brink.

So what if they die, that is nature, and in fact I might well help bring them to extinction myself, for fun. Whereas a human which is a person, ought not to be killed by other humans in order that other humans can enjoy a sexual experience that is consequence free.

Abortion is equal to sadomasochism.

YOUR IGNORANCE IS STILL BEING REVEALED. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHT-TO-LIFE IN NATURE.

Who said anything about nature, certainly not me.

For proof, just hold a lightning rod upward in your bare hands while walking a hill on a golf course in a thunderstorm. Then you can ask the first lighting bolt you encounter whether or not it respects your CLAIMED "right-to-life".

The trouble is you talk about nature, what is so natural about putting a suction catheter into a woman and destroying what nature intended to grow?

Similarly, there ALSO is no "right-to-choose", but for a different reason. If the ABILITY to choose exists, THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY GETS USED during ordinary activities. It gets used whenever you create OR deviate from a habit, just for example, AND that ability is one of the defining characteristics of persons. IT IS PERSONS THAT USED POWER-OF-CHOICE TO **POLITICALLY** CREATE THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT-TO-LIFE. And that concept is extended to PERSONS, not to animals.

Yes, but that is a contradiction because you are an animal, besides the law says that we should not kill people, and people are humans.

UTTERLY FALSE. We have EVIDENCE that YOU ARE WRONG. See, the concept of "right-to-live" is an ABSTRACT thing, and NO evidince of ANY abstract human thought is older than about 50,000 years -- but Anatomically Modern Humans (same genes as us today) are known to have existed/SURVIVED quite well for AT LEAST 50,000 years before then, before the first evidence of any abstract thinking appeared.

No rights to live was removed in the time you speak of, and if it did you certainly cannot prove it.

THAT IS NOT "EXISTENCE OF A HUMAN" that you are talking about there. Semen-injection and egg-fertilization are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. And the second is NOT "forced" to happen, just because the first happens. A man with a low-enough sperm count is actually fairly unlikely to fertilize any eggs. Sperm CAN AND DO "miss the target" --which is why, of course, that the average man has a fairly large sperm count. TO INCREASE A PROBABILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS FORCING SOMETHING.

So if I randomly shoot a gun without looking in a busy street and kill 5 people, I can claim it was all just an accident.

You are completely insane.
She can decide to TRY. That does not mean she will succeed.

But when she does succeed, it is deemed deliberate, so you have failed again to prove your point.

Keep trying.

EXACTLY, when the Natural Mindless Biological probabilities interact to that conclusion. Egg-fertilization and womb-implantation does NOT happen JUST BECAUSE a woman might desire it to happen, AND it CAN happen IN SPITE of a woman desiring it NOT to happen. ISN'T IT LOGICAL THAT IF PREGNANCY COULD BE RELIABLY/DELIBERATELY CAUSED, THEN ALSO IT COULD BE RELIABLY/DELIBERATELY PREVENTED? Since the facts do not support the logic, the BASIS of the logic is false --and that basis is YOUR worthless notion that pregnacies are deliberate.

So when a man gives a woman HIV, you cannot claim he did it on purpose can you? Since, not all sexual encounters of this kind result in the successful transition of HIV.

UTTERLY FALSE. First, the sperm does not "penetrate" the egg so much as "get swallowed" by the egg. The egg has enough Natural Mindless Biological "Life" in it to interact with nearby sperm and, using various sensors and filters in those interactions, it is prepared for a stimulus/response sequence of events that brings the first sperm to pass the filters inside the egg. Second, if it was "hatched" in accordance with your ridiculous claim, LOTS OF SPERM could get inside the egg. THAT NEVER HAPPENS. (Or, if it does, the egg is destroyed in the invasion.) The FACT is, one of the very first events in the fertiliztion process is the SEALING of the egg, to keep out other sperm.

So how does a sperm enter into it? It must break through the egg, so it is hatched.

Try again.

TRUE. There is indeed a difference between death-from-killing and death-by-other-means. No matter what organism experiences death. HOWEVER. FOR PERSONS ONLY, it is considered important that death-by-killing not occur. For animals, unless species-extinction is threatened, it is seldom considered important. (Even WHEN species-extinction happens, little fuss is raised. And so the Earth's Biosphere is in the middle of the biggest Mass Extinction Event since the end of the dinosaur age. ALL due to actions of Persons killing mindless animals and plants.)

Then you need to prove that a foetus is not a person.

I FULLY SEE that you still do not understand that "humans" and "persons" are two distinct concepts.

So persons are not humans? I don’t think so.

This has basically been done in postings I've added to this Thread, some of which (#11 and #12) you have failed to answer. THE KEY FACT/LOGIC IS THAT BECAUSE ENGLISH ALLOWS NONHUMANS TO BE CALLED PERSONS ("little people", God, angels, demons, etcetera), THAT AUTOMATICALLY MEANS THE CONCEPT OF "PERSON" IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CONCEPT OF "HUMAN".

That has not proved that a foetus is not a human.

Try again.
 
My wife and I are pregnant with our first baby and this is very exciting. So far we've seen ultrasounds that show the heart beating, the doctor even allowed us to hear the heart beat. Next time we plan on recording it and keeping it in our baby records. While on a visit our baby moved and my wife and I were tickled pink. The baby is capable of responding to sudden loud noises and experiences stress and calm. The doctor gave us a list of music that is known to calm babies while in the womb.

I know many will debate it until they are blue in the face, but I know our baby is alive and perfectly human. It is a living human being, in an early state of development yes, but living and human nonetheless. We sing to her and read to her. There's a little person in there.

In my opinion it only makes sense to have some laws that protect these helpless little ones to some degree. Perhaps I could understand if a woman aborted to save her life.

Common experience and understanding testifies to the reality that unborn babies are in fact, unborn babies.

Now, would I call an abortion "murder"? I think that is difficult position on hold. I believe an unnecessary abortion is a "tragedy" and perhaps under certain circumstances a "crime" but not necessarily "murder". To my knowledge we have never prosecuted or executed a woman who had an abortion or a doctor who has performed an abortion for "murder". We have revoked licenses to practice and placed stiff fines on those who have performed or procured an abortion. I believe "abortion" is an "abortion" and should be seen differently than murder. To say it is murder would mean we would have to prosecute doctors and women for murder. That just isn't realistic. Abortion is an "abortion". I believe that laws should regulate abortion to protect the lives of the unborn while also allowing for necessary procedures that may save a mother's life.

That's my take on it.
 
Last edited:
jimmyjack quoted: " unplugging an AI is the killing of a person that you CANNOT be sure would be restored by plugging it back in"

--and wrote: "It can always be turned on again, fool!"

YOU JUST IGNORED WHAT I WROTE. YOU CANNOT BE SURE TURNING ON A TRUE ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE/PERSON, AFTER TURNING THE MACHINE OFF, WILL RESULT IN EXACTLY THE SAME PERSON THAT EXISTED THE LAST TIME IT WAS ON. The large paragraph you quoted (that I only minimally re-quoted) explains WHY, and you demonstrated your own foolishness by ignoring it.


jimmyjack also wrote: "Besides, I doubt you are even qualified to speak in this area;"

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! I only have more than twenty years of experience as an expert computer programmer.

--and wrote: "there is no such thing as AI,"

PARTLY FALSE. "Intelligence" consists of a number of phenomena, and most of them have been implemented into different computer systems. Here are some examples:
http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware3/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=109674
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/stanley.html
http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/expert.html
http://www.dacs.dtic.mil/techs/neural/neural3.html
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~reingold/courses/ai/cyc.html
(A couple decades ago I read about a "logic" program that was able to do things like create and prove mathematical theorems. One of the first it came up with was the Pythagorean Theorem. I haven't been able to find a Web reference to that project, though. It was at a Federal lab and may since have been classified.)
THE POINT OF THESE EXAMPLES IS, much progress in many areas is being made, all of which exhibit SOME "artificial intelligence". We are not ready to extend and combine ALL of those capabilities into a single system, but we have no reason to think it cannot someday be done. In maybe ten years the average supercomputer will have about as much processing power as a human brain (and in twenty years the average desktop computer will be that powerful); all we have to supply it is the "seed" selfprogramming software, and let it USE more and more of its hardware, in the same way that a growing human programs itself as its brainpower grows.


jimmyjack also wrote: "so it is not even possible that such a thing can exist, as yet."

TRUE, BUT NOT RELEVANT. IF IT CAN BE DONE AT ALL --AND **ALL** THE EVIDENCE IS THAT IT **CAN** BE DONE -- THEN EVENTUALLY IT WILL BE DONE, AND SOCIETY MUST BE PREPARED TO DEAL WITH IT. PROCRASTINATION IS STUPID. (The evidence that it can be done is simply the fact that the human brain exists, and its operational mechanisms, with respect to data-processing, can be copied.) Procrastination is ESPECIALLY just a stupid excuse on your part to continue to believe nonsense. This is why my handle here is "FutureIncoming" -- to remind you that you CANNOT ignore the things that WILL arrive in the future. {{As an aside, let us suppose for a moment that ACTUALLY the "person" capabilities of humans are a result of the existence of souls, and are not really consequences of human brainpower. In this case it is even EASIER to build an "Artificial Intelligence"; we only need to build an "experiential/interactive device" (SIMPLER than building a hugely powerful computer and computer program) which a loose soul would like to inhabit, equivalent to a human body. When turned on and the soul exhibits its control, that body-and-soul combination would be EXACTLY as much a person as an average well-developed human.}}




jimmyjack quoted: " You are confusing "ability" with "functioning". Does a doctor cease to be a doctor while asleep?"

--and wrote: "Exactly! This is my point!"

FALSE. **YOUR** point is that the doctor loses all abiltiy to do any doctoring, just because sleep occurs. IF THAT WAS TRUE, then the no-longer-doctor would have to go back to school for years, upon waking up, to regain "lost" abilities. SINCE THAT IS NOT THE CASE, YOUR CLAIMS ARE FAULTY.



jimmyjack quoted: "How about a tennis player in-flight between tournaments? If a concert pianist happens to be drinking at a pub where no piano is present, has the pianist lost the abiltiy to play? In all these examples only FUNCTIONING in certain ways is impossible."

--and wrote: "So a human is a person regardless of functionality."

FALSE. An organism qualifes as a person ONLY IF IT IS ABLE to function as a person. Whether or not it DOES function as a person is irrelevant; it simply must be ABLE to do so. Therefore humans such as the unborn, which are TOTALLY UNABLE to function AT ALL as persons, are not persons.



jimmyjack quoted: "Ability persists. So, with this distinction in mind, it is completely true and accurate to say that no unborn human can function like a person because it has NO ABILITY to function like a person. The man in a coma HAS the ability, even if the coma persists for the rest of his life."

--and wrote: That is a complete contradiction! If I cut your legs off do you still have the ability to walk, even if you remain legless for the rest of your life?"

YES. Do you forget how to ride a bicycle just because you might not have ridden one in 40 years? And are you forgetting prosthetics, which are getting advanced enough that they can be controlled directly by nevous-system stimuli? http://www.betterhumans.com/News/2985/Default.aspx
Take that lost-legs man and give him appropriate prosthetics, and you can bet he will be walking VERY quickly.


jimmyjack also wrote: "A man in a coma has no ability, because ability means to be able. The man is incapacitated, because he doesn’t possess the capacity to do anything."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! All that "incapacity" means in this case is that something is interfering with his STILL-EXISTING ability.





jimmyjack quoted: "Actually a human fetus of eight or nine months IS able to exhibit consciousness; brainwave measurements clearly indicate an awake/sleeping cycle. But due to total brainpower available to that fetus, its consciousness is ONLY ANIMAL LEVEL. Not person-level."

--and wrote: "Just like the man in the coma."

FALSE. You are comparing the awake unborn to the un-awake coma victim. Apples and oranges. The awake unborn HAS NO ABILITY to exhibit any of the characteristics of persons. The coma victm has a blockage with respect to still-existing abilities. You know full well that in ALL those cases when coma and blockage end without lots of brain damage, the now-awake former victim ALMOST IMMEDIATELY starts exihibiting characteristics of persons. Only DAMAGE can make any of those abilities disappear.



jimmyjack quoted: "The ONLY reason we wait a long time before taking the brain-dead off life support is because of hope."

--and wrote: "Then why not wait for a foetus with the same hope?"

BECAUSE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR HOPE. Just as there is no requirment that ANY potential be fulfilled. In the case of the unborn human IT IS CERTAIN that it does not qualify for person status, and so, IF IT IS UNWANTED, there is no reason to fret about EITHER potentials or hopes. Meanwhile, there are enough strange cases of PERSONS RECOVERING from horrible damage that it is **NOT** always absolutely certain that the damage has destroyed the person. The "wanting" factor by others is also usually present, in these cases.



jimmyjack quoted: "What we cannot quickly know about the zero-brain-activity human on life support is just how much actual brain damage exists. That is why we can hope for the best. For a time. A time that can be limited by the time it takes to prepare and process and analyze MRI brain scans. Then most of the damage can be KNOWN."

--and wrote: "So you would agree that once a unique person has been determined as having no chance of life, then and only then is it ethical to claim they are dead,"

YES, BECAUSE IN THIS CASE AN ACTUAL PERSON WAS INVOLVED.

--and wrote: "but if a human is still alive (like a foetus), to end their life is totally unethical,"

UTTERLY FALSE, since **A**PROVE-ABLE**ANIMAL** is involved, not a person.

--and wrote: "since we should never intervene in another persons life if there is still a chance of life, regardless of brain activity."

You are now confusing "life" with the mental abilities of persons. TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. When the mental abilities of persons exist, they are respect-able on simple "Golden Rule" grounds. When they don't exist, "respect" is basically Not Applicable. And when ONLY THE POTENTIAL FOR ABILITIES exists, that is the most ignorable situation of all.


jimmyjack also wrote: "Since, some people who die have been known to come back to life after being dead."

AS YOU WROTE: "PEOPLE" have been known to come back from the dead. If ever any ordinary animals have done that, they are STILL only animals.




jimmyjack quoted: "I see you SPLIT a paragraph in order to insert that statement, JUST BEFORE THAT PARAGRAPH'S OWN DISCLAIMER. Anyone comparing Message #22 with the original text in Message #10 can see what I'm talking about. All you have done is make yourself look stupid to everyone else here."

--and wrote: "Elucidate."

CERTAINLY. The paragraph in question mentioned some facts about human development after birth, and indicated that lack-of-development of the characteristics of persons logically means that some born humans cannot be called persons. THAT LOGIC DOES NOT MEAN that mistreatment is promoted! I specifically and immediately went on to show why mistreatment is NOT to be generally expected in those cases, but **YOU** had interject a "Nazi" reference AS IF mistreatment was being promoted. YOUR STUPIDITY ON DISPLAY, there.



{continued next message}
 
{continued from previous message}


jimmyjack quoted: "they can define, AND HAVE defined, "persons" to include more than humans only. Which AUTOMATICALLY means that "humans" and "persons" are two different things, and not the same things."

--and wrote: "If they are two different things and are not the same, it would be false to say that people are humans,"

POORLY PHRASED. IT WOULD BE FALSE TO SAY **ALL** PERSONS ARE HUMANS. God, "little people", angels, demons, space aliens, etcetera, are all legitimate notions in which person status can be granted to nonhumans. So it is not at all false to say that some persons are humans, JUST as it is possible to say that some humans are persons.


jimmyjack also wrote: "and that is just plain old stupid, because people are humans."

ONLY ALL THE PEOPLE WE CURRENTLY KNOW are humans. And yet there remains the popular notion of God, claimed to have completely non-biological essence (therefore completely lacking human-body characteristics), qualifying in no uncertain terms for person status. Your statement is every bit as stupid as your so-called "logic" on this part of the overall topic.



jimmyjack quoted: "but if you can so much as understand the concept of an IQ test, then you already qualify for that aspect of personhood!"

--and wrote: "How does a new born child do those things? Or a man in a coma?"

As previously indicated, the new born child DOESN'T immediately qualify for person status. It needs about 3 years of growing/developing to achieve it. And the man-in-coma (barring lots of brain damage) still has abilities, also as previously indicated.


{out of time; have to continue this response later in another Message}
 
{continues/finishes reply to Message #54}


jimmyjack quoted (in sections): " clearly wrote about unwanted humans who do not qualify for person status. YOUR faulty belief about humans-as-persons does not change the FACTS that unborn humans do not have any ability to function as persons, EXACTLY as ordinary nonhuman animals do not have any ability to function as persons, while nonhuman entities ranging from Artificial Intelligences to God WILL have the abiltiy to function as persons, if only they existed. It is BECAUSE nonhumans are allowed to be persons that some humans can in Measurable Scientific Fact fail to be persons! DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, "humans" and "persons" are! (AND they have been different concepts ever since notions of "little people" --to say nothing of God, angels, and demons-- were taken seriously. Despite the incompleteness of dictionaries.)"

--and wrote (in sections): "When you prove a foetus is not a person, then you can apply this argument. Neither does a man in a coma. What is a person?"

YOU REALLY ARE REVEALING MORE STUPIDITY, WHEN YOU INTERJECT STUFF INTO A PARAGRAPH WITHOUT READING HOW THE PARAGRAPH ENDS. For example, if you don't know what a person is, then on what basis can you say that a fetus is a person, or must be proved to not-be a person? Persons are identifiable by various MENTAL characteristics, NOT by physical characteristics. Mere animals don't qualify as persons because they don't exhibit the distinguishing mental characteristics of persons. Some of the most important of those are (1) Free Will, (2) the empathy to imagine self in the situation of another, (3) the abstraction of ideas into symbols, and (4) the logical manipulation of those symbols to reach conclusions valid even after de-abstraction is done. That is, when Einstein produced his famous equation, the valid conclusion was that Energy and Mass could be converted into each other, something previously unsuspected. Well, anyway, since it takes plenty of brainpower (or brainpower-equivalent, such as God is claimed to metaphysically possess) to qualify for "person" status, it should be OBVIOUS than an unborn human is ONLY an animal.




jimmyjack quoted: "newborn humans also are more often wanted than not, which is why they are seldom abandoned."

--and wrote: "So then you are saying we can kill newborns without it constituting murder."

Depends on the definition of "murder", doesn't it? If it is the killing of a PERSON, then technically, killing a newborn would not be murder. Did you know that the ancient Romans practiced a kind of "eugenics", in which any deformed baby was allowed to die? HOWEVER, I fully recognized that the U.S. Constitution basically arbitrarily declares BORN humans to be persons (14th Amendment), and therefore "murder" becomes applicable to killing newborns. Politics and Scientific Fact are not always in agreement, as you probably know full well. I personally take the stand that IF abortion of the unwanted is allowed, than all newborns are wanted, and almost no killings of newborns would occur, thereby making legal/scientific distinctions about "murder" somewhat moot.



jimmyjack quoted: "We DO execute various parasitic adult humans, such as "serial killers"."

--and wrote: "Do we kill adult conjoined twins too?"

STUPID QUESTION. If one conjoined twin is defective, it will be killed MUCH earlier in life than adulthood, probably soon after birth. If neither are defective, and they cannot be separated, then they should be considerd to have "symbiotic" relationship, not a "host-and-parasite" relationship.



jimmyjack quoted: "It already is illegal, isn't it, for YOU to go up to some random lactating woman and feed from her breasts without her permission? The same logic applies to any other unpermitted breast-feeder, AND to any fetus who does not have permission to feed inside a womb."

--and wrote: "Yes, but we don’t kill people for breast feeding without permission, do we?"

That's ONLY because times have changed since the days of Hammurabi's Code, in which thieves WERE executed. Nowadays we expect to be able to "reform" thieves. But how can you "reform" a fetus? If you "arrest" it, to stop its equivalent-to-theft parasitic actions, then you have aborted it!
 
YOU REALLY ARE REVEALING MORE STUPIDITY, WHEN YOU INTERJECT STUFF INTO A PARAGRAPH WITHOUT READING HOW THE PARAGRAPH ENDS. For example, if you don't know what a person is, then on what basis can you say that a fetus is a person, or must be proved to not-be a person?

I have never said I do not know what a person is. Yet even though you do not know, you are suggesting you are not stupid for killing what you cannot prove to be a person, yet I’m suppose to be stupid for merely questioning your conclusion.

You are killing, I’m not. Get your priorities right.

Persons are identifiable by various MENTAL characteristics, NOT by physical characteristics.

So you are saying you don’t need a body to be a person?

Mere animals don't qualify as persons because they don't exhibit the distinguishing mental characteristics of persons.

Are you sure that is all?

Some of the most important of those are (1) Free Will, (2) the empathy to imagine self in the situation of another, (3) the abstraction of ideas into symbols, and (4) the logical manipulation of those symbols to reach conclusions valid even after de-abstraction is done.

So how does a man in a coma do that?

That is, when Einstein produced his famous equation, the valid conclusion was that Energy and Mass could be converted into each other, something previously unsuspected. Well, anyway, since it takes plenty of brainpower (or brainpower-equivalent, such as God is claimed to metaphysically possess) to qualify for "person" status, it should be OBVIOUS than an unborn human is ONLY an animal.

A foetus is a human, and a human is a person.

Depends on the definition of "murder", doesn't it? If it is the killing of a PERSON, then technically, killing a newborn would not be murder.

You are insane.

Did you know that the ancient Romans practiced a kind of "eugenics", in which any deformed baby was allowed to die?

And did you know the ancient Aztecs sacrificed children, to the sun god.

HOWEVER, I fully recognized that the U.S. Constitution basically arbitrarily declares BORN humans to be persons (14th Amendment), and therefore "murder" becomes applicable to killing newborns. Politics and Scientific Fact are not always in agreement, as you probably know full well. I personally take the stand that IF abortion of the unwanted is allowed, than all newborns are wanted, and almost no killings of newborns would occur, thereby making legal/scientific distinctions about "murder" somewhat moot.

No, it says a born person becomes a citizen.

STUPID QUESTION. If one conjoined twin is defective, it will be killed MUCH earlier in life than adulthood, probably soon after birth. If neither are defective, and they cannot be separated, then they should be considerd to have "symbiotic" relationship, not a "host-and-parasite" relationship.

No, that is false, a “symbiotic” relationship is:

sym•bi•o•sis (sĭm'bē-ō'sĭs, -bī-)
n., pl. -ses (-sēz).
1. Biology. A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.

DIFFERENT ORGANISMS

That's ONLY because times have changed since the days of Hammurabi's Code, in which thieves WERE executed. Nowadays we expect to be able to "reform" thieves. But how can you "reform" a fetus? If you "arrest" it, to stop its equivalent-to-theft parasitic actions, then you have aborted it!

So if a newborn resists arrest will you kill that too?

You are completely insane, seriously mate get some help.
 
Dammit! :lol: I'm snickering again....:mrgreen:
 
jimmyjack wrote: "Just because you say so it doesn’t mean it is true either: Most dictionaries say a Person is a human, so give up, you loose."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! "Just because "most dictionaries" say so, doesn't mean it is true, either"!!!! What you wrote is like saying if a word isn't in the know-it-all dictionaries, it doesn't exist. (And do you know how many CENTURIES went by before certain four-letter words got included in ANY dictionaries?) I'm not losing at all!!




jimmyjack wrote: "Learn your basic Biology, a parasite is an organism that grows and feeds on or in a DIFFERENT organism."

A PERFECT DESCRIPTION OF A FETUS. Note that that word "organism" does NOT mean "species". And there is NO argument here about the fetus and the woman being different organisms!



jimmyjack quoted: "And, of course, when a pregnancy is WANTED, THEN the parasitic developing human organism is indeed invited."

--and wrote: "Then at this point it doesn’t constitute a parasite since a parasite is one that takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return"

I notice a slight difference in the two definitions you presented. The BIOLOGICAL definition specified contributing to the survival of the host, which is not the same thing as the "making any useful return" of the SOCIAL definition. Well, it is obvious that a fetus DOESN'T contribute to the survival of its host, especially when sometimes the question is how much is it directly threatening the life of its host. THE WORD "PARASITE" CONTINUES TO APPLY TO AN UNWANTED UNBORN HUMAN.




jimmyjack quoted: "It is the Natural Mindless Biology of the embryo and the womb that, by pure stimulus/response interaction, "decides" whether or not implantation will occur."

--and wrote: "With that logic I cannot deliberately kill you by playing Russian roulette, I think if I try often enough I will definitely kill you."

UTTERLY FALSE. When you play Russian Roulette, you point the gun at YOUR OWN head, not at the head of someone else. **AND** you are now confusing two different probabilities. The probablity that a bullet's gunpower will ignite is very high WHEN AND ONLY WHEN the gun's hammer interacts with it. Bullets are designed/built to have that very high probability. So, only the probablity of interaction is generally important, when playing Russian Roulette. Meanwhile, the probablity of fertilization (equivalent to gunpowder igniting) is wildly variable, no matter how many sperm are interacting with an egg. It is Natural Mindless Biology that is TOTALLY in control of that uncertain probablity; humans only have control over the probable numbers of sperm in the vicinity of an egg. Not to mention that pregnancy requires a SECOND wildly variable probablity to occur, womb-implantation, which ALSO is totally controlled by Natural Mindless Biology. Egg-fertilization is a meaningless event if womb-implantation fails (a few human cells die, not very significantly different from the cells that your body sheds every minute -- and here, read this:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1754008,00.html
As soon as that technique is applied to humans --probably in less than 5 years-- shed cells that haven't died yet will ALL be the equivalent of whole organisms, each able to (re)grow an entire body if a suitable nourishing environment existed for them, exactly like zygotes).




jimmyjack quoted: "about the occupants of wombs. THEY HAVE NO ABILITY TO MAKE ANY CHOICES. All their actions are Natual Mindless Biological, they are pure stimulus/response bio-machines, pre-programmed by genetics."

--and wrote: "So the choices you have now, would still exist even if you had been aborted?"

POTENTIALS NEED NOT BE FULFILLED, such as your own potential to fall down a staircase and break your neck. I exist in spite of all abortions ever done, hah! And so do more than 6 billion other humans, including, unfortunately, idiots who don't understand they are promoting the rape of the biosphere, to the ultimate death of 99% of all humans in a Malthusean Catastrophe, by insisting even MORE humans be born. WHY are you so pro-death that you want 99% of all humans to die? (And don't say we are immune to Malthus' prediction; ALREADY it has come true for humans once, on a small scale, on Easter Island (population 20,000 dropped to 200), when their environment could no longer support their numbers.) "Those who do not learn from the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them." ***I*** have learned Easter Island's proof-of-principle lesson, but you are still ignorant and foolish. Perhaps you will deign to learn, and change.




jimmyjack quoted: "Since they MEASURABLY have no ability to make choices, it is ALSO IMPOSSIBLE to deprive them of using an ability that does not exist. SIMPLE LOGIC."

--and wrote: "So if I kill a man in a coma I have not taken his choices away have I, since at that point in time he could not make choices."

BAD LOGIC. You are still ignorantly failing to recognize the difference between ability and functioning. Awaken the man from a coma and he will immediately exhibit power-of-choice. ABILITY persists in spite of blocks to functionality. Observe an awake 8-months fetus, and it won't act in any way different from a stimulus/response ANIMAL. IT HAS NO SUCH ABILITY as power-of-choice. (HOWEVER, I do recognize that in a certain philosophical scenario, in which souls-are-persons and they incarnate shortly after birth, then a newborn SHOULD be able to exhibit some power-of-choice fairly quickly, even if other characteristics of personhood take years before being detectable. Something to research!)




jimmyjack wrote: "The trouble is you talk about nature, what is so natural about putting a suction catheter into a woman and destroying what nature intended to grow?"

BAD LOGIC. Humans are PART of Nature, which is why Natural Mindless Biology is associated with human bodies. So, if humans are part of Nature and beavers are part of Nature, why is a beaver dam called "natural" while a human dam isn't? It is LOGICAL that since humans are part of Nature, ALL human actions are "Natural"!!! **HOWEVER** one reason to make a distinction is due to Free Will. **IT**IS**NOT** part of Natural Mindless Biology. We acquire it through Quantum Physics and the Uncertainty Principle, while Natural Mindless Biology is pretty much just a cause-and-effect system. Free Will wouldn't BE what it is, if only cause-and-effect ruled. THEREFORE, we DON'T have to pay attention to what Nature has to say about Right-to-Life, and so we DO make a political claim about it. ALSO, we can and do use that same Free Will to specify which organisms do and do not need to have our political Right-to-Life extended to them. Unborn humans can be exempted BECAUSE we have Free Will, and they don't, EXACTLY like most ordinary animals are exempted for the same reason. SIMPLE LOGIC.



jimmyjack quoted: "that concept is extended to PERSONS, not to animals."

--and wrote: "Yes, but that is a contradiction because you are an animal, besides the law says that we should not kill people, and people are humans."

NONSENSE. The "contradiction" you see is PURELY a result of your ignorant refusal to acknowledge the obvious fact that humans and persons are different CONCEPTS.




jimmyjack quoted: "See, the concept of "right-to-live" is an ABSTRACT thing, and NO evidince of ANY abstract human thought is older than about 50,000 years -- but Anatomically Modern Humans (same genes as us today) are known to have existed/SURVIVED quite well for AT LEAST 50,000 years before then, before the first evidence of any abstract thinking appeared."

--and wrote: "No rights to live was removed in the time you speak of, and if it did you certainly cannot prove it."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Are you so ignorant you have never heard about "feral" children raised by animals in the wild? UNLIKE fantasies such as those of Tarzan and Mowgli, REAL cases of that rare thing DOES NOT lead to humans who exhibit all the characteristics of persons. When growing up there is a "window" of opportunity, for the human brain to be stimulated into thinking abstractly. If the window passes, the human NEVER acquires that ability. WELL, WHEN THE FIRST MODERN HUMANS CAME INTO EXISTENCE (more than 100,000 years ago), ALL OF THEM WERE "FERAL". **OBVIOUSLY** they were raised by animals!!! Equally obviously, the mentally stimulating environment that today's human children typically experience simply did not exist. Well, as the generations past and feral humans had offspring and raised them, ALSO becoming feral humans, of course. Nevertheless, GRADUALLY humans began developing new things, mostly tools for doing things (specialized arrowheads, specialized scrapers, etcetera). ONLY AFTER ENOUGH GENERATIONS PASSED, when the ACCUMULATION of "new things" were experienced in the window of opportunity of mental growth, THEN did any humans become the first abstract thinkers. THOSE humans soon conquered the world and left evidence everywhere of their abstract thinkings (decorated pottery, for example). This happened about 50,000 years ago, because no evidence exists, of earlier abstractions. IT IS DURING THOSE 50,000+ YEARS OF FERAL HUMANITY, THAT NO POLITICAL RIGHT-TO-LIFE EXISTED. And yet they survived. Thereby proving you wrong, that humans require right-to-life to survive.

{continued next message}
 
{continued from Message #64}


jimmyjack quoted: "Sperm CAN AND DO "miss the target" --which is why, of course, that the average man has a fairly large sperm count. TO INCREASE A PROBABILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS FORCING SOMETHING."

--and wrote: "So if I randomly shoot a gun without looking in a busy street and kill 5 people, I can claim it was all just an accident."

BAD ANALOGY. If you want to compare bullets to sperm, then typically only ONE person (the egg) can be in the street, while you shoot in random directions. Roughly half the sperm, after all, go up the WRONG Fallopean tube. ALSO, MORE BAD ANALOGY: once more you confuse persons (in street) with mindless organisms (sperm, egg, zygote). For a more accurate analogy, try swatting a fly out of mid-air. If you make enough attempts you will increase the probability of success --and then only a mindless non-person will be killed.




jimmyjack quoted: " She can decide to TRY. That does not mean she will succeed."

--and wrote: "But when she does succeed, it is deemed deliberate, so you have failed again to prove your point."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! THAT WAS NOT THE POINT! WHEN SHE DECIDES TO TRY **NOT** TO BECOME PREGNANT, BY USING BIRTH CONTROL, AND PREGNANCY HAPPENS ANYWAY, YOU HAVE NO GROUNDS TO DEEM THE PREGNANCY DELIBERATE!!!




jimmyjack quoted: "First, the sperm does not "penetrate" the egg so much as "get swallowed" by the egg."

--and wrote: "So how does a sperm enter into it? It must break through the egg, so it is hatched."

FALSE. The egg COMES WITH WAYS FOR A SPERM TO ENTER. NO BREAKING NECESSARY. That's why the phrase "get swallowed" is appropriate, especially since the EGG controls which sperm will enter. There is simply one or more passageways into a newly-minted egg, and all get sealed after fertilization occurs. NO HATCHING AT THAT TIME. Not to mention that to reveal the FULL stupidity of your claim, just compare it to a hen's egg. Sperm and "germ cell" inside that egg get together to initiate a new organism; HATCHING doesn't take place until long afterward. For a fertilized human egg, how can you possibly say that an egg hatches TWICE, when THIS link clearly shows the REAL hatching event: http://www.wonderquest.com/TwinsTrigger.htm






jimmyjack quoted: "I FULLY SEE that you still do not understand that "humans" and "persons" are two distinct concepts."

--and wrote: "you need to prove that a foetus is not a person. So persons are not humans? I don’t think so."

Which just PROVES that you do not understand that "humans" and "persons" are two distinct concepts. WOULD YOU OR WOULD YOU NOT GRANT PERSONHOOD TO A FRIENDLY PILOT OF A FLYING SAUCER FROM OUTER SPACE? I'm pretty sure that if friendliness was demonstrated, MOST humans would have no problem granting personhood. So, next, if that saucer-pilot had green scaly skin and tentacles, you hardly would call him/her/it a human would you? THEREFORE PERSONS DON'T HAVE TO BE HUMAN. **THEREFORE** "PERSON" MUST BE A CONCEPT WITH A DIFFERENT DEFINITION THAN "HUMAN" --in spite of ALL ignorant/incomplete/inaccurate dictionaries. Do remember that dictionaries FOLLOW/RECORD the way language is USED, they don't force languange into a permanent static mold. We humans have had about a century of thinking about nonhuman persons in such widespread formats as books and movies, from "War of the Worlds" through "Superman" to "Yoda"; if the dictionaries haven't caught up yet, with the modern usage of "person", that fact is nothing new!




In response to a previous post similar to the previous paragraph, jimmyjack wrote: "That has not proved that a foetus is not a human."

DUHHH??? Now you are changing you tune? Previously you have requested data about why a fetus is not a PERSON. I have done that, but NEVER have I claimed that the fetus is anything other than human, a HUMAN ANIMAL ORGANISM, different than a person.
 
As entertaining as this has been, PLEASE, FI, for the future of my sight, copy and paste bracketQuote=jimmyjackbracket when replying to his inanities?? It's faster, less words and all you'd have to do is type bracket/QUOTEbracket at the end of each. (He does seem to go against his own previous arguments quite often, eh?)
 
Last edited:
jimmyjack quoted: "if you don't know what a person is, then on what basis can you say that a fetus is a person, or must be proved to not-be a person?"

--and wrote: "I have never said I do not know what a person is."

AH, BUT YOU PROVE YOU DON'T, EVERY TIME YOU QUOTE AN OUT-OF-DATE DICTIONARY DEFINTION.

--and wrote: "Yet even though you do not know,"

FALSE. Your CLAIM that I do not know does not make it so.

--and wrote: "you are suggesting you are not stupid for killing what you cannot prove to be a person,"

UTTERLY FALSE. THE TOTAL INABILITY OF UNBORN HUMANS TO EXHIBIT THE MENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONS IS EASILY PROVED.

--and wrote: "yet I’m suppose to be stupid for merely questioning your conclusion."

No, you are the one exhibiting stupidity, by ignoring facts and logic.

--and wrote: "You are killing, I’m not. Get your priorities right."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! You kill every day just by living. Swarms of bacterial invaders are killed by your body's immune system. Do you think that the lives of many are more important than the lives of one? Then take a lot of immune-system-suppressors, and wait. I simply make no distinction between killing one plentiful mindless organism and another. YOUR priorties though, could use some straightening, to remove worthless prejudice.




jimmyjack quoted: " Persons are identifiable by various MENTAL characteristics, NOT by physical characteristics."

--and wrote: "So you are saying you don’t need a body to be a person?"

Hey, lack of a body hasn't stopped all sorts of ficticious stories of unusual persons from being presented to the public. How about the 1990 movie "Ghost"? Or, does God have a physical body (impossible if God created the physical universe....)? And here is an original Star Trek episode:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6300988694/104-0647760-5883962?v=glance



jimmyjack quoted: "Mere animals don't qualify as persons because they don't exhibit the distinguishing mental characteristics of persons."

--and wrote: "Are you sure that is all?"

Well, they CANNOT exhibit the distinguishing mental characteristics of persons. OK? Would you like to make suggestions? See the challenge in my signature?



jimmyjack quoted: "Some of the most important of those are (1) Free Will, (2) the empathy to imagine self in the situation of another, (3) the abstraction of ideas into symbols, and (4) the logical manipulation of those symbols to reach conclusions valid even after de-abstraction is done."

--and wrote: "So how does a man in a coma do that?"

As stated in other Messages, the ABILITY still resides in the comatose man, UNLESS serious brain damage has occurred (you haven't said much about distinguishing a coma from brain death). Only the FUNCTIONING of that ability is "off". You know full well that almost as soon as the coma ends, the man will be displaying those abilities once again. Just like riding a bicycle. YOU ALSO KNOW THAT UNBORN HUMANS CANNOT DISPLAY THOSE ABILITIES, PERIOD, EVEN IN THE WAKING STATE. For them, the abilities simply do not exist.



jimmyjack quoted: "Well, anyway, since it takes plenty of brainpower (or brainpower-equivalent, such as God is claimed to metaphysically possess) to qualify for "person" status, it should be OBVIOUS than an unborn human is ONLY an animal."

--and wrote: "A foetus is a human,"

TRUE.

--and wrote: "and a human is a person."

FREQUENTLY. But not always, IN MEASURABLE FACT. Do you have any basis for your claim, besides out-of-date dictionaries and plain old-fashioned worthless prejudice?



jimmyjack quoted: "Depends on the definition of "murder", doesn't it? If it is the killing of a PERSON, then technically, killing a newborn would not be murder."

--and wrote: "You are insane."

No, insane persons are those who deny facts and logic. Perhaps you are projecting?




jimmyjack quoted: " Did you know that the ancient Romans practiced a kind of "eugenics", in which any deformed baby was allowed to die?"

--and wrote: "And did you know the ancient Aztecs sacrificed children, to the sun god."

Not newborns, I think? But the Aztecs deliberately killed persons from their own culture of a wide range of ages. That's significantly from the Romans, whose religious beliefs allowed some leeway time after birth before newborns could be called persons. THEY didn't particular consider infanticide to be murder. Especially since the method of that death was abandonment/exposure. And of course we also know the Romans condoned all sorts of other killings, but even in the Coliseum they were mostly executions of criminals/enemies, or combats-to-the-death. NOT outright murders of their own citizens.



jimmyjack wrote: "No, it {U.S. Constitution} says a born person becomes a citizen."

And citizens are granted rights, certainly. However, every ten years the Constitution requires a Census Of Persons (for figuring distribution of Representatives to Congress), and ever since 1790, when the first one was done, NO unborn human has ever been counted. In the USA, therefore, BY ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE FOR MORE THAN 200 YEARS, unborn humans are NOT persons worth counting, or, in other words, they don't count as being persons. The ancestors who WROTE the Constitution, and who carried out the first Census, were the same folks who gave us the dictum "don't count your chickens before they are hatched". The high Natural rate of miscarriages and stillbirths would have made a hash of the Census, and led to endless arguments about Fair Representation, had pregnancies been counted!




jimmyjack quoted: "they should be considerd to have "symbiotic" relationship, not a "host-and-parasite" relationship."

--and wrote: "No, that is false, a “symbiotic” relationship is: {definition}"

OK, I accept that technically, the relationship of conjoined twins does not match your dictionary definition of "symbiotic". But NEITHER is that relationship "parasitic". POSSIBLY, they should be considered two minds occupying one "extended body". Except, so far as I know, Twin A of the pair cannot normally exert direct motor control over the limbs of Twin B, and vice-versa. Cooperation is the only way they can go anywhere.




jimmyjack quoted: "how can you "reform" a fetus? If you "arrest" it, to stop its equivalent-to-theft parasitic actions, then you have aborted it!"

--and wrote: "So if a newborn resists arrest will you kill that too?"

DUH, you have ignored what I wrote about WANTED newborns, haven't you? Abortion allows all the UNwanted to be weeded out, preferably the earlier in a pregnancy the better (the procedure is simpler then, the effects on the woman's body are minimized, the total "drain" of the woman's bodily resources by the fetus is also minimized, and so on).
 
How is abortion murder? The Fetus feels nothing! The only people who feel the pain are those who are forced to get an abortion because they are poor or might die because of the birth. I can see people disliking "un-required" abortions, but when it comes to the health and safety of the mother you have no right to say it is not right.
 
It always amuses me that the self proclaimed 'pro life' lobby are usually also those who are pro war:thinking Is there after all some morally relevant cut off point at which it is once again ok to kill?

One also notices with amusement that those who oppose abortion usually also tend not to give a toss about people who are actually alive - homeless folk etc.

So come on guys admit it...

its got nothing to do with the sanctity of human life - if it did you'd be protesting the war wouldn't you?

It's about foisting your backward religious views upon a civilisation that has grown out of them. Unfortunately you can't burn us at the cross anymore - you'd like to though wouldn't you...?

If you're so 'pro life' - rather than sticking your judgemental nose into the affairs of others who you don't even know, trying to enforce a change in the law whereby they be compelled to produce a child they don't want... Why don't you go and adopt a child yourself? Why don't you go out and reduce human suffering - go and save starving children or something? That makes more sense to me if you're really 'pro - life.'

Go and do some good to those who want and need your help - leave the rest of us to enjoy 21 century medical technology.

Free abortion for all!
As soon as possible - as late as necessary.

Death to religious ignorance and prejudice!
 
captain-sensible said:
It always amuses me that the self proclaimed 'pro life' lobby are usually also those who are pro war:thinking Is there after all some morally relevant cut off point at which it is once again ok to kill?

One also notices with amusement that those who oppose abortion usually also tend not to give a toss about people who are actually alive - homeless folk etc.

So come on guys admit it...

its got nothing to do with the sanctity of human life - if it did you'd be protesting the war wouldn't you?

It's about foisting your backward religious views upon a civilisation that has grown out of them. Unfortunately you can't burn us at the cross anymore - you'd like to though wouldn't you...?

If you're so 'pro life' - rather than sticking your judgemental nose into the affairs of others who you don't even know, trying to enforce a change in the law whereby they be compelled to produce a child they don't want... Why don't you go and adopt a child yourself? Why don't you go out and reduce human suffering - go and save starving children or something? That makes more sense to me if you're really 'pro - life.'

Go and do some good to those who want and need your help - leave the rest of us to enjoy 21 century medical technology.

Free abortion for all!
As soon as possible - as late as necessary.

Death to religious ignorance and prejudice!

We speak on behalf of the unborn because they cannot speak for themselves.

Those subject to war can speak for themselves, or they can walk away from the destruction.

An infant in the womb cannot.
 
I don't want to kill it - I want to allow the parents to terminate an unwanted pregnancy within the time limit allowed by law - if that is what they choose.

I believe that the right of a living and mature woman to make available choices about her own body is more important than the rights of the unborn - you may not - I do. I support womens rights and I don't like they way this issue is used to undermine them.

I don't have the scientific acumen to prove that a fetus is not a person any more than you can prove it is - I guess it would depend on how we define the term...

Regarding your point on war killing: I do not think people facing bombs missiles and bullets actually can walk away from them - they tend not to afford their victims that opportunity.

Moreover - can victims of war speak for themselves? Do we listen and stop killing them when they do? Why is that relevant anyway... surely the ability to speak for yourself is not a relevant criterion by which we should oppose killing...

Is it ok to kill people who can complain about it?

If this is equally bad, my suggestion is that we do something about the killing that is done by our governments - on a much larger scale and in our name and with our taxes, before we stick our righteous noses into the private affairs of other peoples families.
 
How is abortion murder?

Because a foetus is a human, and humans are people, and people kill foetuses, which is murder and it is abortion.

The Fetus feels nothing!

So can we kill all people that feel no pain? If you don’t feel pain are you any less of a person? Is pain a requirement for personhood?

The only people who feel the pain are those who are forced to get an abortion because they are poor or might die because of the birth.

I didn’t realise America was so poor, or that giving life was so detrimental to making life.

I can see people disliking "un-required" abortions, but when it comes to the health and safety of the mother you have no right to say it is not right.

If my mother had sex and that is what establishes me, and I had no choice but to live, and I only have one chance at life. Why should my mother have the right to kill me because she doesn’t want me? Surely it is no longer just my mothers business, because now there are two of us. If I existed through my own intervention, then I might sympathise with you, but she helped establish me, changing her mind will erase my existence forever. I have done nothing wrong, why should I die?
 
Each day both of you debate this until you're blue in the face nearly 3,000 unborn children are aborted.

Frankly...you both are part of the problem. Yes....BOTH of you are failing to see the point. If either of you valued human life you would agree that the real solution is reducing the abortion rate. There are concrete initiatives that can do this but we have to agree upon them and support leaders who will impliment them. These initiatives have been known to reduce the abortion rate drastically while not absolutely banning abortion. Consider Belgium. The nation of Belgium has some of the world's most liberal abortion laws...yet it has the world's lowest abortion rate. Why? Policies that address the issues women face. 97% of the world's abortions take place outside of the United States. Well over half of these occur in nations where abortion is illegal. Banning abortion is meaningless and will not save lives. Policies...policies that address the issues women face and policies that assist women with crisis pregnancies are the way to go.

I ask both of you...do you want to save lives or just argue about abortion???

Talk is cheap.

Shut up or put out policy suggestions. Both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides should agree that abortions can be prevented. Let's work together and save lives and stop this stupid arguing.

As it has been said, faith without works is dead.

Rev. CH
 
I don't want to kill it - I want to allow the parents to terminate an unwanted pregnancy within the time limit allowed by law - if that is what they choose.

Sorry but abortions do kill.

I believe that the right of a living and mature woman to make available choices about her own body is more important than the rights of the unborn - you may not - I do.

So you don’t agree that we are all equal?

I support womens rights and I don't like they way this issue is used to undermine them.

But you like the way abortion undermines the infants in the womb.

I don't have the scientific acumen to prove that a fetus is not a person any more than you can prove it is - I guess it would depend on how we define the term...

So neither of us can kill the unborn then, good job I don’t intend to.

Regarding your point on war killing: I do not think people facing bombs missiles and bullets actually can walk away from them - they tend not to afford their victims that opportunity.

They have a greater chance of avoiding these problems then a foetus does, and that is why I speak for the foetus, who is the only true innocent victim.

Moreover - can victims of war speak for themselves?

I hear many protests from those subject to war.

Do we listen and stop killing them when they do?

Sadly not.

Why is that relevant anyway... surely the ability to speak for yourself is not a relevant criterion by which we should oppose killing...

Definitely not!

Is it ok to kill people who can complain about it?

Definitely not!

If this is equally bad, my suggestion is that we do something about the killing that is done by our governments - on a much larger scale and in our name and with our taxes, before we stick our righteous noses into the private affairs of other peoples families.

You mean your government has killed more then 40 million people, through war?
 
ChristopherHall said:
Each day both of you debate this until you're blue in the face nearly 3,000 unborn children are aborted.

Frankly...you both are part of the problem. Yes....BOTH of you are failing to see the point. If either of you valued human life you would agree that the real solution is reducing the abortion rate. There are concrete initiatives that can do this but we have to agree upon them and support leaders who will impliment them. These initiatives have been known to reduce the abortion rate drastically while not absolutely banning abortion. Consider Belgium. The nation of Belgium has some of the world's most liberal abortion laws...yet it has the world's lowest abortion rate. Why? Policies that address the issues women face. 97% of the world's abortions take place outside of the United States. Well over half of these occur in nations where abortion is illegal. Banning abortion is meaningless and will not save lives. Policies...policies that address the issues women face and policies that assist women with crisis pregnancies are the way to go.

I ask both of you...do you want to save lives or just argue about abortion???

Talk is cheap.

Shut up or put out policy suggestions. Both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides should agree that abortions can be prevented. Let's work together and save lives and stop this stupid arguing.

As it has been said, faith without works is dead.

Rev. CH

Not true, the way to defeat abortion is to educate those that allow it to exist, such as the Church of England. Abortion is genocide and genocide is always turning up in history in one way or another, whether it is: Hitler or Stalin or the state for enforcing these laws that allows it. When abortion is defeated, and the infants in the womb are liberated, there will be another ethnic group to receive the punishment of mans inhumanity.

Education, then legislation will follow, if we still live in a democracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom