• 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.

I have a new Avatar

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Going waaaaaay back...

Felicity said:
What about the remains of "people" at the World Trade Center Towers collapse...I keep aking this to those who object because no one has yet answered it (or even commented)...Those victims of 9/11 are being identified as individuals based solely on DNA--how is that different from identifying the human that was sucked from the womb in an abortion as an individual based on DNA? The only difference I can see is a subjective difference of the person making the definition placing value on ....I'm not sure what...
AND
So is it safe to say that although there is scientific evidence of distinct human individuality that can be ascertained by DNA evidence in some cases, your position is such that it is acceptable to use this measure for people you subjectively assume are human persons (such as WTC victims)--and not acceptable for those you subjectively assume are not human persons (such as zygotes/embryos)?

Just a thought....what if they found DNA of a distinct individual at the WTC site that turned out to be an embryo that had been within one of the victims? What would they do with that?

As I said before, DNA tests can be used to determine A) if the organic material is human in origin and B) if the material of human origin matches that of any other sample material, which we can use to prove that both materials are of the same origin, in the WTC case the same person. However, as I said before (and I think Tecoyah agreed, though I'm not positive) when we start to talk about if that material comes from a human individual we get into metaphysics; what it is to be. Just as you say we subjectivly assume zygotes/embryos are not individuals, we can say that you, just as subjectivly, lable them as individuals. The point is zygotes/embryos, while having the potential to become children, are not recognizably children. Since they cannot communicate, and for the first half of the gestation period or so have no real cognitive function (i.e. concious thoughts), the zygote/embryo/fetus might as well be an animal. Your arguement is based on an emotional reaction, and when you get down to it so is ours. You see a child in the embryo/zygote/fetus, and we see something alien. Which is right? Who knows, but I like to think science is on my side, and that makes me feel a little more sure of myself.



PS: As per the fetus DNA from the WTC, because we can't determine with certainty whether the material was from a child, adult or unborn we would have to assume that it was an adult for lack of data. Without another sample to compare it too we would have no way of knowing who that DNA sample belonged too.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
Going waaaaaay back...


AND


As I said before, DNA tests can be used to determine A) if the organic material is human in origin and B) if the material of human origin matches that of any other sample material, which we can use to prove that both materials are of the same origin, in the WTC case the same person.

That's not entirely so--some of the victims were identified by compatible family DNA. Like a mother of the victim was tested and the the victim's identity was ascertained by the comparison between the DNA. You could do the same for any level of development including zygote/embryo/fetus...


The point is zygotes/embryos, while having the potential to become children, are not recognizably children.

You are talking about "children"--I am talking simply "a human." Is it wrong to take the life of a human when he's a day old? then what is the difference? You say thinking or cosciousness--you are adding a criteria of functionality whereas I am not.


Since they cannot communicate, and for the first half of the gestation period or so have no real cognitive function (i.e. concious thoughts), the zygote/embryo/fetus might as well be an animal.
"might as well be" is not the same as "is."

Your arguement is based on an emotional reaction, and when you get down to it so is ours.
Again, I would have to say you are adding a criteria of functionality whereas I am not. Unless your point is that we can deconstruct everything and anything down to the point of is the "there" really "there" or are we all a passing whiff of imagination in an being that exists for a milisecond and then vanishes back to nothingness.


You see a child in the embryo/zygote/fetus, and we see something alien.
I see a human.

Which is right? Who knows, but I like to think science is on my side, and that makes me feel a little more sure of myself.
I just want to highlight this one word....



PS: As per the fetus DNA from the WTC, because we can't determine with certainty whether the material was from a child, adult or unborn we would have to assume that it was an adult for lack of data. Without another sample to compare it too we would have no way of knowing who that DNA sample belonged too.
The father could have survived and the DNA could be matched to him.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Proudly Pro Life JP Freem said:
The picture is of my son Joe he was about 20 weeks he lived an hour and he could have been aborted. He recieved no help no oxgen in fact he wasa only given the blanket and hat after he died. The hospital staff wanted the picture to be nice. I wish they would have given the blanket and hat sooner. Like a fish they said he was just to small.

I lost a child at 20 weeks too. I refused a picture or to even see the baby, because I felt like it would be harder to get over the grief if I saw him. I later felt guilty about that. I just didn't want that implanted in my memory, because I feared I would never get over it. A baby is not able to sustain life outside the womb at twenty weeks due to the lungs being under developed.
 

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The point is zygotes/embryos, while having the potential to become children, are not recognizably children.
I agree with this entirely, I even said so. This is one of the reasons i think some people are pro-choice instead of pro-life.

You are talking about "children"--I am talking simply "a human." Is it wrong to take the life of a human when he's a day old? then what is the difference? You say thinking or cosciousness--you are adding a criteria of functionality whereas I am not.
Yes I am adding a criteria of functionality, this is because I don't believe in a preexisting soul. I believe what makes us human is our mind, and as such a prerequiste for being human is having a working mind. Of course it is wrong to take the life of a child that is a day old, but I dont agree that the embryo/zygote IS a child.

Again, I would have to say you are adding a criteria of functionality whereas I am not. Unless your point is that we can deconstruct everything and anything down to the point of is the "there" really "there" or are we all a passing whiff of imagination in an being that exists for a milisecond and then vanishes back to nothingness.
Again, I would have to point out that my definition of human rests on this criteria of functionality. And no that is not my point, my point is that both our positions are, when you get down to their roots, based on an emotional response to the fetus/embryo/zygote. You see a child, we see something else.

"might as well be" is not the same as "is."
And saying "the zygote is a human" does not make it so. I was trying to explain what i believe causes some people to be pro-choice, not call the embryo an animal.

I see a human.
Thats what I said....

I just want to highlight this one word....
Whats your point here? Do you not FEEL like your position is the better one? Don't you FEEL that abortion is murder? I simply FEEL that my position is the one supported by more facts, thats why its my position.

The father could have survived and the DNA could be matched to him.
True but how do we know whether it's an adult or child or a fetus in the cases where the father did NOT survive? If the father survived he would know whether his wife/girlfriend/aquaintance was pregnant and could carry out the funeral process as he sees fit.
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
I agree with this entirely, I even said so. This is one of the reasons i think some people are pro-choice instead of pro-life.
--yeah:3oops: I messed up the formatting (again)--I was quoting you...

Yes I am adding a criteria of functionality, this is because I don't believe in a preexisting soul. I believe what makes us human is our mind, and as such a prerequiste for being human is having a working mind. Of course it is wrong to take the life of a child that is a day old, but I dont agree that the embryo/zygote IS a child.
So what is it about a one day old mind that makes it "human" in your opinion? Could you be specific about what sort of functionality differentiates man from animal at this stage? I mean....pigs are smarter than day old infants and do you eat bacon? Horses are smarter--do you wear leather anything? So what is the difference in your mind?

Again, I would have to point out that my definition of human rests on this criteria of functionality. And no that is not my point, my point is that both our positions are, when you get down to their roots, based on an emotional response to the fetus/embryo/zygote. You see a child, we see something else.
I said "I see a 'human'"--because I recognize that "child" is a developmental stage and imprecise. Where am I emotional in this argument? I'm asking, because I don't "feel" emotional--It seems to me obvious fact that an embryo is a human based on the DNA telling us the species and DNA can be identified, quantified, classified...the specimen can be measured and determined to be a complete specimen--hence "a" single individual of the species...where am I emotional so I can better understand your perception and perhaps my own?


And saying "the zygote is a human" does not make it so. I was trying to explain what i believe causes some people to be pro-choice, not call the embryo an animal.
Why...what difference is there between a zygote and an animal when you throw in the functionality requirement of the "mind"--actually--living animals have MORE of a "mind" (per your definition) than the zygote. See...this is an inconsistency in logic that gives me pause and makes this reasoning very suspect in my mind. There is a law of logic that if something is false, then the opposite is necessarily so..

like...
A: My shirt is cotton.
B: No it's not--it's polyester.
Hence: The shirt is NOT cotton.

Clear up the difference between a day old human and a horse in terms of the "mind" and I may understand better.

True but how do we know whether it's an adult or child or a fetus in the cases where the father did NOT survive? If the father survived he would know whether his wife/girlfriend/aquaintance was pregnant and could carry out the funeral process as he sees fit.
Well....he would not necessarily know--SHE might not have known....even so--This answer sort of implies that even though the remains WERE identified as "a human" specimen, depending on the father's point of view--that thing was a human or just simply human DNA. If he wanted it--a human, if not--not a human. Is that how you see it?
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
OdgenTugbyGlub wrote: "Yes I am adding a criteria of functionality, this is because I don't believe in a preexisting soul. I believe what makes us human is our mind, and as such a prerequiste for being human is having a working mind. Of course it is wrong to take the life of a child that is a day old, but I dont agree that the embryo/zygote IS a child."

CAREFUL! There is a trap waiting to snap, when talking about functionality. See for yourself:
http://www.cbhd.org/resources/bioethics/beckwith_2001-11-19.htm
ABILITY is a better criterion, because an ability can exist (say can play the piano) even when no functionality of that ability is possible (no piano present). Well, the fact is, it takes significant time for humans to grow some of the mental abilities that distinguish us from animals:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000ACE3F-007E-12DC-807E83414B7F0000&sc=I100322
I do not hesitate to claim that newborn humans can NOT qualify as persons, for exactly such reasons as indicated in that article. AND, obviously, different humans acquire those abilities at different rates. The AVERAGE three-year-old may be able to handle abstract symbology, but some humans never acquire the ability, and others may acquire it before their second birthday. While such a conclusion may be unsettling, that human infants and toddlers are basically just animals (yet why should anyone who ever experienced the Terrible Twos in action say otherwise? :), it is not a BAD thing to acknowledge facts. PETS are animals, too, and we generally treat them fine, often not so different from the way young human animals are treated.


Felicity wrote: "So what is it about a one day old mind that makes it "human" in your opinion? Could you be specific about what sort of functionality differentiates man from animal at this stage? I mean....pigs are smarter than day old infants and do you eat bacon? Horses are smarter--do you wear leather anything? So what is the difference in your mind?"

If you were hoping to spring that "functionality" trap, think again! And, have you noticed that Society is generally set up so that IT DOESN'T MATTER if young children are animals and not persons? They are granted few rights, and have to demonstrate abilities before being given responsibilites. It works. I'm not suggesting messing with it. I'm merely saying we should be honest in recognizing what's what.
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Felicity wrote: "So what is it about a one day old mind that makes it "human" in your opinion? Could you be specific about what sort of functionality differentiates man from animal at this stage? I mean....pigs are smarter than day old infants and do you eat bacon? Horses are smarter--do you wear leather anything? So what is the difference in your mind?"


The term "Smarter" is arbitrary in this statement, as there is no means to guage the validity of the premis. This is the reason I personaly use the brainwave function in forming my own opinion. The Human brain has a defined wave pattern when active....which is quite unique in the animal kingdom, as is that of a Pig, or a horse. By looking for this pattern in a fetus, science can guage the point at which Human thought becomes even remotely possible:

"But the human part of the brain—the cortex—is not fully developed, as shown by "brain waves" on an EEG, until very late in gestation; in fact the EEG continues to change and mature into childhood. Indeed, the "individuating" function of a person's brain doesn't start to come into existence until the outer surface of the cortex begins to develop those deep furrows, grooves, and convolutions (sulci and gyri) that make a human brain look like a walnut, unlike the smooth brains of other animals. The furrows and grooves are what enable our brains to have millions more cells and connections between them than other animals, and so create our humanity. And the precise configuration of the grooves and convolutions are part of what determines our individuality; why, for instance, indentical twins have different personalities, and even, perhaps, why Einstein was a genius. However, these structures don't begin to form until the last 2 months of pregnancy."


http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm


I decided long ago to try to remove the emotion as much as possible from this debate....as it seemed the primary cause for argument. I also noted that, regardless of how many denials are used , Religion plays a major role in the stance of most people:

Lack of agreement about the start of "personhood" among faith groups:

Justice Blackmun noted that there is a wide diversity of belief among different religions:
*In ancient times, the Greek Stoics believed that human personhood did not begin until live birth.
* At the present time, most Jews believe that full human personhood is attained only during delivery when the fetus is half delivered from its mother's body.
*Justice Blackmun referred to the Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," which was the predominant belief among Christians throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote in one of his biological treatises 4 that the male embryo develops a human soul -- and thus becomes a human person -- about 40 days after conception, whereas a female fetus acquires its soul at about 90 days. For much of its history, the Christian religion believed in this delayed-ensoulment principle and allowed abortions up to 90 days into pregnancy.
* He noted that those Protestant denominations which had made formal statements on abortion generally regarded abortion to be "a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family." Since Roe v. Wade, Protestant denominations have been divided along liberal/conservative lines with the latter strongly opposing abortion access.
* The Roman Catholic Church, since the 19th century, has consistently regarded personhood as beginning at conception.

A few pro-choicers believe that the fetus becomes a human person only after it has been delivered and is breathing on its own as a separate individual. This belief may be based on Biblical passages. For example, Genesis 2:7 states that God made Adam's body from the dust of the ground. But it was only after God "breathed into it the breath of life" that Adam "became a living person."


"In the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a Missouri law which said that life begins at conception. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens wrote: "...the intensely divisive character of much of the national debate over the abortion issue reflects the deeply held religious convictions of many participants in the debate....The Missouri Legislature may not inject its endorsement of a particular religious tradition into this debate, for '[t]he Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution] does not allow public bodies to foment such disagreement'."

Thus.....I rely on Science to form opinion.
 
Last edited:

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FutureIncoming said:
If you were hoping to spring that "functionality" trap, think again!
Your so paranoid FI---it would be cute except that you view pigs and babies on equal moral footing. Read any Swift lately? You kow how he (satirically) suggested the English handle the excess reproduction of those Irish....You all for that?
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah said:
Felicity wrote: "So what is it about a one day old mind that makes it "human" in your opinion? Could you be specific about what sort of functionality differentiates man from animal at this stage? I mean....pigs are smarter than day old infants and do you eat bacon? Horses are smarter--do you wear leather anything? So what is the difference in your mind?"


The term "Smarter" is arbitrary in this statement, as there is no means to guage the validity of the premis. This is the reason I personaly use the brainwave function in forming my own opinion. The Human brain has a defined wave pattern when active....which is quite unique in the animal kingdom, as is that of a Pig, or a horse. By looking for this pattern in a fetus, science can guage the point at which Human thought becomes even remotely possible:
but then you are doing EXACTLY the same thing I suggest is appropriate when you look at DNA. You are generalizing a function of the species to the whole species--even those that can't demonstrate it. FI was correct that this is the crux of the contradiction I am concerned with (but it is not a "trap" as he characterized it--it is what I have been expressing...) the human baby can't demonstrate the same level of cognative ability or "thinking" as a horse, and yet we (most of us) view babies as of more moral 'value' than a horse because they are human. It is the same generalization I am making but you make it at a different stage of development, based upon a "function" rather than a biological fact.


Thus.....I rely on Science to form opinion.
Am I relying on faith here? I do have faith, and I agree that many base their opinion on faith--but why do you think (if you do) that is what I am doing here?
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity wrote: "Your so paranoid FI---it would be cute except that you view pigs and babies on equal moral footing. Read any Swift lately? You kow how he (satirically) suggested the English handle the excess reproduction of those Irish....You all for that?"

Heh, as it happens, I know what Swift wrote. Personally, I think the Irish should have paid attention to what their potato famine was REALLY telling them: There is a point where it is OK TO STOP the "be fruitful and multiply" thing. Any culture that stupidly passes that point basically gets what it deserves. If NO human cultures learn it, and we mindlessly breed ourselves into starvation again and again and again, then are we really so much smarter than ordinary animals, after all?

Nevertheless, do remember that infants are basically the property --"chattel" is not an unknown description even for older children-- of the parents. How did Swift plan on compensating those parents in his Modest Proposal? I haven't read the actual essay, so don't know. In the USA today, in theory only those children that are wanted by the parents would be born (the rest would either be unconceived, or be aborted if there weren't so many roadblocks) --and so that means the parents would be raising them, not giving them away or selling them or whatever. A baby's death, if soon AFTER birth, means that the investment represented by pregnancy was wasted --as good a reason as any to be upset. Death BEFORE birth should be as much before birth as possible, to minimize wasted investment, especially when the investment was unwanted.

Felicity, it occurs to me to ask why you want unwanted babies to be born. Obviously you cannot expect the parents to pay for unwanted offspring, simply because the process of conception is an INVOLUTARY event. Nobody but the zygote is responsible for it implanting itself unwanted into a womb (certainly they FAIL to do so often enough when wanted!). To claim it MUST be nourished is to claim that when you choose to walk by a boggy area (comparable to a choice to indulge in some sex), and a mosquito flies into your personal space and lands on your arm (comparable to the involuntary events of conception and implantation), you must let it suck your blood. NOT!!! So, if you want the unwanted to be born so much, why don't you put YOUR money where your mouth is, to pay their prenatal medical bills, and all the food, clothing, diaper, toy and other bills that come along after birth? Let's put your name on a list with all the other pro-lifers, so that anyone with an unwanted pregancy can send all the relevant bills to you! And, every year, you can help pay for a million ADDITIONAL mouths-to-feed. Until you get the message that too much of ANY good thing is actually a bad thing.
 
Last edited:

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FutureIncoming said:
Felicity wrote: "Your so paranoid FI---it would be cute except that you view pigs and babies on equal moral footing. Read any Swift lately? You kow how he (satirically) suggested the English handle the excess reproduction of those Irish....You all for that?"

Heh, as it happens, I know what Swift wrote. Personally, I think the Irish should have paid attention to what their potato famine was REALLY telling them: There is a point where it is OK TO STOP the "be fruitful and multiply" thing. Any culture that stupidly passes that point basically gets what it deserves. If NO human cultures learn it, and we mindlessly breed ourselves into starvation again and again and again, then are we really so much smarter than ordinary animals, after all?

Nevertheless, do remember that infants are basically the property --"chattel" is not an unknown description even for older children-- of the parents. How did Swift plan on compensating those parents in his Modest Proposal? I haven't read the actual essay, so don't know.

I think you misunderstand the point of the SATIRE.....You should read it--it's shorter than most of your posts!
I'll give you some highlights:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
.....
"I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

"I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.
......
"After all, I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion as to reject any offer proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innocent, cheap, easy, and effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme, and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, as things now stand, how they will be able to find food and raiment for an hundred thousand useless mouths and backs. And secondly, there being a round million of creatures in human figure throughout this kingdom, whose whole subsistence put into a common stock would leave them in debt two millions of pounds sterling, adding those who are beggars by profession to the bulk of farmers, cottagers, and laborers, with their wives and children who are beggars in effect: I desire those politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold as to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food, at a year old in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes as they have since gone through by the oppression of landlords, the impossibility of paying rent without money or trade, the want of common sustenance, with neither house nor clothes to cover them from the inclemencies of the weather, and the most inevitable prospect of entailing the like or greater miseries upon their breed for ever.

"I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country, by advancing our trade, providing for infants, relieving the poor, and giving some pleasure to the rich. I have no children by which I can propose to get a single penny; the youngest being nine years old, and my wife past child-bearing.
The End "


Really...the whole thing is worth reading (except, FutureIncoming, I’m afraid you may find it quite logical and propose we take Swift's suggestion to heart here in the U.S.—where he claims the idea originated!)

The pro-choice argumentation rings throughout. Such prognostication! as it was written in the 18th century. How ironic that within the text is this passage: “There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.”
 

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Felicity quoted: "How did Swift plan on compensating those parents in his Modest Proposal? I haven't read the actual essay, so don't know."

--and also quoted: "... be offered in the sale ..."

Thanks!
I think the idea wouldn't work to reduce the birth rate. Perhaps you are aware that cannibals have called human flesh "long pig" because supposedly it tastes like pork? Well, if baby-selling fetched high prices for WHATEVER reason, people would have more babies just to sell them!

As for Swift blaming the Americans for the idea, do remember that in the days when Swift lived, the English perception of Americans was that we were crude and barbarous. I suspect they may still think so (with abortion NOT a factor; abortions are quite legal in England if I recall right).
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vergiss said:
And the award for the Most "What the hell does your post have to do with what I said" Post goes to...

So what about identical twins, Felicity? Do they not meet the requirements necessary to be an individual being, given that they share the same DNA?

You said you can tell a Zygoat from a fetus or Baby. I just pointed out the fact you can not tell by DNA.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2005
Messages
340
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vergiss said:
Um... what are you on about? What expression of concern, where? :neutral:

I guess Felicity was trying to say use more tact when expressing opinions, you will go further in life. Listen to older people you can learn alot. You may not agree with them now but store the info as it may be valuable in the future.
Who made the soup? I believe we are all like soup. Everyone we come in contact with adds an ingrediant some good some bad. If we hang out with bad people then more bad ingrediants, If we hang out with good people More good ingrediants. Society tastes the soup and decides if it is good or bad. If it is bad it gets heaved. If it is good it is treasured
 

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Who made the soup? I believe we are all like soup. Everyone we come in contact with adds an ingrediant some good some bad. If we hang out with bad people then more bad ingrediants, If we hang out with good people More good ingrediants. Society tastes the soup and decides if it is good or bad. If it is bad it gets heaved. If it is good it is treasured
And Crappiest Non-sequitor Analogy goes too......
 

Felicity

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
tecoyah--I'm still interested in your thoughts in reference to post #84.:2wave:
 
Top Bottom