Aren't we all missing the big picture?

[Jay R]

:roll: Here we go.... At least you're keeping me posting on this thread, if only to correct you.

This entire thread fails to take it into account.

I take it into account. I'm well aware of the fact that an abortion terminates what could potentially be a person. I don't necessarily like it but i'll damn well not stand for you denying me or anyone the choice to use it solely on the grounds that you don't like it, which after all is about the extent of your argument. As such if I'm posting on the thread then at least one person is taking the foetus into account, or are you going to dictate to me what I think next?

your displeasure is some of us wouldn't play that game.

And what game would this be then? My irritation with this thread is that the pro-lifers cannot focus on the specific topic that is the possible or potential effects of an abortion ban, instead they trawl the same ground with endless perambulations about how much they dislike it and how it absolutely must be banned because they dislike it. It does nothing for their standing as thinking individuals capable of a debate, they seem entirely unable to comprehend the notion that there may be other consequences to banning abortion, that once they succeed in getting it banned all will be right with the world. It comes of course from repeating the same argument over and over again without thinking about it, they become blind to anything beyond the mantra they keep repeating. That's the politics of the ignorant, and I think we've heard it so many times before now that it is starting to make the notion of debate void. In case you hadn't noticed it's DebatePolitics, I don't have a problem with the prolifers engaging in debate but they aren't doing so. They are starting to sound like those Pakistani kids in the Madrassa's, endlessly repeating the passages of the Koran, as if that passes for an informed education.

haha, it "bores you'. Oh well.

Um....yeah, that's what I said. I'm already bored with the thread itself, correcting you is the only thing to do here at the moment. Oh well, I'll make do with it.

And while I'm at it, that reply you gave to my last post was was a perfect illustration of my point. I added a new aspect to the debate, and it seems yet another that you're completely ignorant of, and what did you come back with? This:

This entire thread fails to take it into account. your displeasure is some of us wouldn't play that game.

haha, it "bores you'. Oh well.

What do you call that? Struggling to keep pace zymurgy? Hard to think of responses to considered posts that advance the debate? Looks like someone's running out of firepower to me.:rofl And then you go off and waste everyones time complaining about Bodisatva posting in different sizes, fonts and colours, blatantly trying to avoid confronting the opinions that you have no adequate response for. I don't give a damn about that, I'm more concerned about you trying to avoid giving us something more than the usual "Abortion is murder! I'm right, everyone else do as I say!".

No matter how long or how loud you shout that old 'abortion is murder' dogma you're not going to convince anyone, either of the argument itself or of your ability to debate. Lets hear you really add something to this thread, I'm quite looking forward to your next post.

 

[Jerry]

There are some things for which substantiation does not exist. You & I both know that prostitution legislation is an attempt to legislate morality. I cannot prove it, and you cannot disprove it - but that doesn't mean it isn't true or false.

I disagree with your assumption that I know that making prostitution illegal is an attempt to legislate morality. I see prostitution as a societaly destructive behavior: spreading std's, training men to treat women like sex objects, taking disadvantaged and/or abused women and children into various levels of slavery, etc. However I'll have to save all of that for a prostitution debate.

Your inability to prove that Alabama legalized prostitution on the grounds of morality brings us back to square-one:

You can't base law on morality, so "the lesser of 2 evils" is irrelevant.

LOL - we do it all the time in this country. Why stop now?

So, lets give it another go. Gay marriage would highjack this thread in a nanosecond. How about anti-abortion legislation? That at least is relevant to this thread.

If you would, I believe that if you quote an existing law and show where morality is contained therein, that would suffice. If you could find the relevant state's Congressional Minutes containing their official debate that could help also.

It depends on what the statement is. Statistics should be able to be substantiated, but it's not always that easy. Bottom line is that there are going to be truths about our society that you can't back up with a link to a website.

Sure, but you should be able to demonstrate your point through example, be it experience, source, experiment, or similar. Making a claim will usually be summarily dismissed as baseless if not substantiated. Opinions will be questioned, reasons for possessing an opinion expected, logic tested.

 

[BodiSatva]

Arthur Fonzarelli

Gee Whiz, all you had to do was answer the freaking question in the first place, instead of contorting the issue. I addressed the root of the issue in my initial point. If I misunderstood you, it is simply because you were not clear. You do not seem to be able to answer a simple question as of yet.

Lesson in answering questions #1

When a person asks:

Originally posted by BodiSatva
1. Is an embryo/fetus a human being with all rights and privileges of a sentient being bound by Human Rights and constitutional Rights AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION?

If not immediately, then move to the next questions…

2. When does an embryo definitively become a fetus?
3. When does a fetus definitively become a human?
4. To what extent does a Mother or Mother-To-Be have the right to control her own body and what happens to it regardless of what her pregnant status might be?

You answer…
1. Yes, with reasoning for a specific question
OR
2. No, with reasoning for a specific question

NOT

Originally posted by Mr. Fonzarelli
it's a HUMAN embryo
it's a HUMAN fetus

if the fact that they are human in the first wasn't important then we'd just use animal (cats, dogs, horses, etc.) emryos for embryonic stem cell research.

the embryo/fetus growing inside of a pregnant woman isn't going to come out some other species.

“it's a HUMAN embryo” – Even though you answer this first, it answers #2 in my questioning, but not definitively. You only give a pathetic opinion based on NOTHING.

“it's a HUMAN fetus” – Even though you answer this second, it answers #3 in my questioning, but not definitively. You only give a pathetic opinion based on NOTHING

The rest answers NOTHING regarding my questions. You think that I can't keep up...that I am not following you? Bro! I am waiting for you to answer the INITIAL QUESTION STILL!! You can't even answer a simple set of questions and you have the inane belief that you are anything other than an elementary school drop-out? IF you were not left behind, you sure as hell should have been. :lol:

I then say…

That is obvious and irrelevant.

This means that what you are saying does not answer the questions…what you are saying is obvious and irrelevant. GET IT HOMEBOY!?? Ghaahaha… holy COW! :lol:

I then try to reel you in with analogies…not realizing how frickin lost you are to begin with…

You think that my analogies do not work, and that is opinionated and irrelevant to the fact that you ENTIRELY MISSED THE INTIAL POINT!

I even back-track for you…stating…

“THIS IS WHY I ASKED THESE SEQUENTIAL QUESTIONS!!”

AND

“If I am not being clear, let me know.”

You then respond with…

“You obviously didn't understand my point as I did not suggest that a "human" embryo was simply a part of a human. I was pointing out that it is "human." (please try to keep up)”

DUDE! Hahahaaaa AHA HAhahaaAHAHAHAHA!!!! :rofl
Are you serious? OF course I understand your pathetic point. “a ‘human’ embryo was simply a part of a human”. This is what my analogies stated. Boogers. Kidneys. These are "part of a human" as well. They are NOT HUMAN BEINGS THOUGH! The question is when does an embryo/fetus become a HUMAN BEING. It now appears as if you think that an embryo/fetus is a HUMAN BEING at the moment of conception? That is fine. Why did you not simply state this when I asked the FIRST FREAKING QUESTION YOU.....YOU!!....YOU!!!!
Oh MAN!
Hahahahaa

“please try to keep up”? Haha…you are so frickin behind it is almost unimaginable. Those that I pointed out ARE PART OF A HUMAN as well.

All you want to do then is debate what you could not explain in the first place. OF COURSE an embryo is different than skin, BUT that is not what you said initially… You were simply saying that, “a ‘human’ embryo was simply a part of a human”. UNDERSTAND !?

“part of a human.” - Fonzarelli
“PART OF A HUMAN” – BodiSatva
Do you see a similarity?

I love this mimicking of me…

(please try to keep up)
(are you with me?)
(stay with me now)
(I didn't lose you; did I?)
(sure hope I didn't lose you along this journey)

What freaking grade are you in so I don’t waste any more time with this childish banter.

This might be repetitive, but it sums it up nicely...

I asked...

Posted by Bodi
When does a fetus definitively become a human?

You blunder about for a bit...

Posted by Bodi
This is not about what will BECOME human.
This is about what IS human.
THIS IS WHY I ASKED THESE SEQUENTIAL QUESTIONS!!

Posted by Fonzarelli
again...this where we disagree. My belief is that an embryo of the human species is human. (stay with me now)

I have already stated that it is a HUMAN EMBRYO.
The question is when does it become a HUMAN BEING.
Cognitive and functioning as such...

Not the ridiculous

Posted by Fonzarelli
isn't going to come out some other species.

ARE YOU INSANE!?

What idiot person do you communicate with actually needs this spelled out for them...I certainly made it clear that I have a fourth grade education at least, and that is about two grades higher than you apparently.



Wide Latitude

Neither do I - it's good to see people exchanging ideas and opinions, but it's bad to see people debate who can't back up their argument with reasoning.

It sounds as if we agree…but then you seem to be attacking me, as if I am not backing up my argument with reasoning? This is a bit confusing, it seems to be based in assumption and insult. Correct me if I am misreading this please.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Correct me if I am misreading this please.

You have been corrected. Yet, you still don't get it.

The fact that your reading comprehension appears to be at about 3rd grade level we can't really debate as you have nothing of importance to offer to the debate. Even when trying to mimic our exchange you get it wrong. The intial question was answered quite clearly & reasoning was given. You simply don't like the answer.

What do you consider a fully functioning human being? There are a lot of human beings that are not fully functioning due to brain damage or some other handicap. Are they not human beings? Should we abort their existence (life) since they don't fully function? Even infants don't fully function. They can't walk, talk or feed themselves. Can't wipe their butts. Basic functions of a human being. Shall we abort them all?

just so you know --- they're rhetorical questions.

 

[Stace]

Moderator's Warning:

Not gonna fly, fellas. I asked you once to knock it off and get the thread back on track. Hasn't happened. I asked you to stop bickering over whether or not someone insulted someone else, yet now you've moved on to outright flaming. This thread is closed. Wide Latitude, feel free to start this discussion over. If you choose to do so, and this happens again, folks WILL be banned from the discussion if they can't adhere to those rules.