• 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.

Godwin's Law Irrelevant in Rational Abortion Debate

Felicity quoted part of: "AT LAST! Felicity admits she is only talking about a POTENTIAL. ... On what unprejudiced or nonhypocritical grounds can you say that THOSE Potential events must be supported, while THESE Potential events we are free to interfere?"

--and wrote: "This would be funny if it weren't so pitiful...."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Prejudice and hypocrisy are ALWAYS pitiful, when they aren't downright idiotic.

--and wrote: "The embryo is not "potential' anything--it IS a live human (as you insist) "organism." That real human entity dies if it doesn't implant. The action of "implanting" is the potential "possibility."

TRUE, AND NEVERTHELESS, NATURE SAYS IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. **NO** life-form is required to continue existing. Therefore our bodies kill bacteria by the thousand every day. Therefore thousands of humans die every year in various Natural events. So, on what unprejudiced or nonhypocritical grounds can you say that early-stage human life should continue to exist without interference by Rational Will, while other equivalent life-forms are exempt from such a dictum?
 
FutureIncoming said:
Felicity quoted part of: "AT LAST! Felicity admits she is only talking about a POTENTIAL. ... On what unprejudiced or nonhypocritical grounds can you say that THOSE Potential events must be supported, while THESE Potential events we are free to interfere?"

--and wrote: "This would be funny if it weren't so pitiful...."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Prejudice and hypocrisy are ALWAYS pitiful, when they aren't downright idiotic.

--and wrote: "The embryo is not "potential' anything--it IS a live human (as you insist) "organism." That real human entity dies if it doesn't implant. The action of "implanting" is the potential "possibility."

TRUE, AND NEVERTHELESS, NATURE SAYS IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. **NO** life-form is required to continue existing. Therefore our bodies kill bacteria by the thousand every day. Therefore thousands of humans die every year in various Natural events. So, on what unprejudiced or nonhypocritical grounds can you say that early-stage human life should continue to exist without interference by Rational Will, while other equivalent life-forms are exempt from such a dictum?
Click to expand...
not going back to the dumb roundy-round of that "personhood" stuff I (how do you say?) "demolished " your arguments in.
 
Felicity said:
not going back to the dumb roundy-round of that "personhood" stuff I (how do you say?) "demolished " your arguments in.
Click to expand...

There is nothing dumb nor roundy-round about the personhood argument. It is a clearly logical and legal stance which is sound and airtight...so much so that the Catholic church nor the courts nor the medical community deny it. Why do you? News flash, a fetus isnt a person and the world isn't flat. No one's arguments have been demolished...FI is doing great and you never had a leg to stand on to start with...:rofl
 
Felicity quoted: "So, on what unprejudiced or nonhypocritical grounds can you say that early-stage human life should continue to exist without interference by Rational Will, while other equivalent life-forms are exempt from such a dictum?"

--and wrote: "not going back to the dumb roundy-round of that "personhood" stuff I (how do you say?) "demolished " your arguments in."

**THAT**IS**A**LIE!** NOTHING you have written has EVER shown that an unborn human possesses ANY of the characteristics that define the class of "persons". None has a Rational Will; None can do symbol-abstraction, and so on. AND your feeble attempt to associate "persons" with "species" proved worthless, also, since for 50,000-odd years ALL anatomically modern humans failed to fully qualify as persons --PROOF that personhood is a MENTAL-development thing, not a physical-development species-thing.

And don't think I didn't notice that when 50,000 years humans-as-ferals was first mentioned, you FAILED to offer ANY counterpoint. Because you KNOW facts like that --not to mention the FutureIncoming ability of Genetic Engineering to "uplift" INDIVIDUAL ordinary animals to person status (see the works of David Brin, starting with "Sundiver") will NOT automatically make persons of all the other ordinary animals of that species-- facts like those demolish YOUR philosophy, and nothing else.
 
jallman said:
There is nothing dumb nor roundy-round about the personhood argument. It is a clearly logical and legal stance which is sound and airtight...so much so that the Catholic church nor the courts nor the medical community deny it. Why do you? News flash, a fetus isnt a person and the world isn't flat. No one's arguments have been demolished...FI is doing great and you never had a leg to stand on to start with...:rofl
Click to expand...
Yeah...Your Mamma!


:rofl

you are a JOKE jallman:lol:
 
FutureIncoming said:
Felicity quoted: "So, on what unprejudiced or nonhypocritical grounds can you say that early-stage human life should continue to exist without interference by Rational Will, while other equivalent life-forms are exempt from such a dictum?"

--and wrote: "not going back to the dumb roundy-round of that "personhood" stuff I (how do you say?) "demolished " your arguments in."

**THAT**IS**A**LIE!** NOTHING you have written has EVER shown that an unborn human possesses ANY of the characteristics that define the class of "persons". None has a Rational Will; None can do symbol-abstraction, and so on. AND your feeble attempt to associate "persons" with "species" proved worthless, also, since for 50,000-odd years ALL anatomically modern humans failed to fully qualify as persons --PROOF that personhood is a MENTAL-development thing, not a physical-development species-thing.

And don't think I didn't notice that when 50,000 years humans-as-ferals was first mentioned, you FAILED to offer ANY counterpoint. Because you KNOW facts like that --not to mention the FutureIncoming ability of Genetic Engineering to "uplift" INDIVIDUAL ordinary animals to person status (see the works of David Brin, starting with "Sundiver") will NOT automatically make persons of all the other ordinary animals of that species-- facts like those demolish YOUR philosophy, and nothing else.
Click to expand...

.....:mrgreen: .....
 
jallman wrote to Felicity: "you never had a leg to stand on to start with"

Actually, she DOES have two legs on which she stands: Prejudice and Hypocrisy. All her efforts are nothing but a smokescreen to hide the fundamental fact that she thinks that SUBJECTIVE valuations of PROVABLY-mindless PROVEABLY-animal unborn humans matters a whit (not to mention HER valuations mattering more than the valuations of others).

And her most recent post to me (Msg #257) simply reveals the additional fact that she doesn't want to admit she is wrong. If she was right, after all, she would have a counter-argument that would survive unbiased fact-based scrutiny!
 
Felicity said:
Yeah...Your Mamma!


:rofl

you are a JOKE jallman:lol:
Click to expand...

Substance or even style...possibly some true wit? Nah...thats asking too much out of you...
 
FutureIncoming said:
jallman wrote to Felicity: "you never had a leg to stand on to start with"

Actually, she DOES have two legs on which she stands: Prejudice and Hypocrisy. All her efforts are nothing but a smokescreen to hide the fundamental fact that she thinks that SUBJECTIVE valuations of PROVABLY-mindless PROVEABLY-animal unborn humans matters a whit (not to mention HER valuations mattering more than the valuations of others).

And her most recent post to me (Msg #257) simply reveals the additional fact that she doesn't want to admit she is wrong. If she was right, after all, she would have a counter-argument that would survive unbiased fact-based scrutiny!
Click to expand...

Exactly, and when she cant make her arguments stick, she starts blatantly attacking her opposition. Of course, the response will be that I am projecting my own behavior, but we all can read here...she isnt worth debating this issue with because she cant even form a coherent thought. No wonder the pro life camp has been rewarded with futility and impotence in overturning Roe vs Wade :rofl
 
Felicity said:
The difference is a natural death process versus the intentional death of the embryo.

It's like a baby that is born but does not have the lung development to continue living, versus the born human that you put into a room and vacuum all the air out of it. Both die because they cannot breathe, but one dies as the result of something beyond control and is a natural death, the other is the intentional deprivation of a necessary environment and therefore is an UNnatural death.
Click to expand...
YEs so stop cutting your nails and hair as you are killing millions and millions of cells. Also as for the un-natural portion stop taking any form of antibiotics when you get ill because you are too also killing a plethora of cells.

Plus what is that rant about how a zygot is formed supposed to be for? You think everyone is as arrogant and fanatic as you?
 
Talk amongst yourselves....it truly is an enjoyable spectator's sport!:mrgreen: I'm confident that rational people see the truth of the debate--even if they don't agree with my conclusions. Let me know when you'd like to chat WITH me about something new rather than "about" me in your skewed schoolyard way! ta-ta...;)
 
jallman said:
Exactly, and when she cant make her arguments stick, she starts blatantly attacking her opposition.
Click to expand...
Priceless!:lol:
Of course, the response will be that I am projecting my own behavior,
Click to expand...
Ah-HA! you do listen!

but we all can read here...
Click to expand...
indeed and as I said, I'm confident rational people know what's going on.
 
Felicity said:
Talk amongst yourselves....it truly is an enjoyable spectator's sport!:mrgreen: I'm confident that rational people see the truth of the debate--even if they don't agree with my conclusions. Let me know when you'd like to chat WITH me about something new rather than "about" me in your skewed schoolyard way! ta-ta...;)
Click to expand...

Kindly refer to post 260...but whenever we want a dose of rude, simplistic, and illogical badgering tossed with a hint of schoolgirl smartass comments, we'll be sure to let you know.
 
jallman said:
Kindly refer to post 260...but whenever we want a dose of rude, simplistic, and illogical badgering tossed with a hint of schoolgirl smartass comments, we'll be sure to let you know.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...yeah...:confused: post #260 is you and FI dumping on me...you finally got something right....you do recognize that sort of foolish personal attack without substance--you referred us all to a prime example!
 
Felicity said:
Uhhh...yeah...:confused: post #260 is you and FI dumping on me...you finally got something right....you do recognize that sort of foolish personal attack without substance--you referred us all to a prime example!
Click to expand...

Whatever it takes to get you through the night, sweetheart.
 
In Message #265, Felicity wrote: "post #260 is you and FI dumping on me"

This is incorrect. The truth is more like this:

In Message #254, jallman wrote to Felicity: "you never had a leg to stand on to start with"

which might be called "dumping", but...

In Message #258, FutureIncoming wrote, "Actually, she DOES have two legs on which she stands:"

which was DEFENDING Felicity from that particular "dump". FutureIncoming was explaining the origin of Felicity's anti-abortion stand, using the best data available (lots of posts by Felicity), all consistently pointing to what was written in Mesage #258. Even if Felicity disagrees, that does not change the truth of the analysis, nor the evidence behind it. Perhaps she would like to provide EVIDENCE of some alternate origin of her anti-abortion stand? Something that can withstand close scrutiny? Feel free!

Then in Message #260 jallman quoted it and added some more stuff that might be called "dumping". Ah, well, sorry, nothing I can do about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom