• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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.

Real simple:

What are you?

  • Pro-life

    Votes: 19 32.8%
  • Pro-choice

    Votes: 39 67.2%

  • Total voters
    58
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mark this down on your calendar, we agree completely here.

That's kind of what I have been saying all along. Felicity and I had a similar revelation right about Christmas time...:shock:
 
1.) If you have desires and you were a foetus, how do you explain your comment that said foetuses are incapable of desire?

Neither he nor anyone else had desires as a fetus. When/if a fetus develops into something else, it may develop desires. As a zef, all needs are met by the body of the woman, there is nothing more for it to desire.

2.) A dead man has attained personhood, how can he be more significance than a foetus?

A dead man is no longer a person. Why would he be more significant than a fetus? A dead man is only significant in the memories of those who knew/cared for him. A fetus is only significant to those who anticipate its birth. To society, they are neither of much significance.
 
That is not a valid response to the request. The request was "Explain to us why those new humans deserve to stay alive", and you have basically stated, "just because they are humans". This is like saying that "bugs deserve to stay alive just because they are bugs". You have not responded in a way that is valid in a Debate. Try again!





That's a reasonable response to the second question, but you have entirely ignored the first question (bolded).

FALSE. A woman's physiology is distinctly touched and altered by pregnancy. And the word "molested" might apply too, especially the first definition here, depending on what the woman thinks about it.

And so we should equally deny treatment for other "supposed" conditions, which by the way happen all the time, such as malaria, ringworm, trichinosis, etc? Are you saying that Natural Mindless Biology deserves more control over her life than her mind?

Finally, why are you using a biased definition of "condition"? And how do you expect to get away with the bias not being exposed for the idiocy that it is?

============================
I have now finished responding to Msg #604. Part of this response was in Msg #605 and Msg #679 It appears that despite the many messages between those first two and this last one, you have responded to almost none of it. (I see some blather in #606 where you tout the Law over Science. Do remember that I have always asked that we consider a generic definition of "person", a Scientific way to identify one anywhere, of any type --and despite mere claims and Law, so far nobody, including Felicity, has presented a definition that succeeds at always separating mindless animals from mind-possessing persons, while simultaneously including mindless humans as persons, too. And that is the basis I use, when I say such things as "brain-dead humans on life-support cannot be persons".)



Rawkin' post, FI.
I must admit I don't usually read your posts, because I find them difficult to follow. I more like scan them, to see if there's anything there that I can understand. Usually, there isn't. This is not to say I don't appreciate your efforts on behalf of the pro-choice cause; I do, I most definitely do. It's just that you usually write in such abstract and technical terms that it's often a trifle alienating (and if I feel that way, imagine how some of these other poor nitwits around here feel. Why, they probably think you're speaking Swahili!)

But anyway, this post was really way cool, so thanks for that.
 
I was a fetus. I am no longer a fetus. One would think that you are just being obtuse.

So then you are saying that foetuses are capable of desire, they just need time.

Agreed?

A death certificate cancels a birth certificate. Besides, a dead man does have more significance or at least dignity than a fetus does. Just ask your own PL allies. I mean, really, how many times is a dead man used as a banner for political gain. I see you PL'ers throwing pictures of fetuses around all the time as if they were nothing more than meat. If that is how you present a fetus, then why do you guys attack me for viewing them that way? :shock:

Do you want free bus passes for dead men too?

Are you for real?

I'll give you a chance to retract your comment before you are totally humiliated in this debate.
 
That's kind of what I have been saying all along. Felicity and I had a similar revelation right about Christmas time...:shock:

We're all just gona have to get to gether and go out or somthin :mrgreen:
 
So then you are saying that foetuses are capable of desire, they just need time.

Agreed?

No, I am saying that a fetus is not the equivalent of a developed person. I am capable of being a doctor, I just need time. Does that mean I get the status and the privilege of a doctor now? No way.

Do you want free bus passes for dead men too!

I have no idea what you are saying.

I'll give you a chance to retract your comment before you are totally humiliated in this debate.

I am quite comfortable with my position and confident that if any humiliation should befall me in this debate, it most likely won't be coming from you. You can keep your chance for me to retract my statement; I don't need it.

I have never, in my life, seen the pieces and parts of dead men used as political banners as I have seen with the pieces and parts of fetuses by pro lifers.
 
Neither he nor anyone else had desires as a fetus. When/if a fetus develops into something else, it may develop desires. As a zef, all needs are met by the body of the woman, there is nothing more for it to desire.

You desire, you were a foetus.

So to say foetuses are not capable of desire is false, as we are living proof that they do.

A dead man is no longer a person. Why would he be more significant than a fetus? A dead man is only significant in the memories of those who knew/cared for him. A fetus is only significant to those who anticipate its birth. To society, they are neither of much significance.

Ah, you agree with me, excellent!
 
No, I am saying that a fetus is not the equivalent of a developed person. I am capable of being a doctor, I just need time. Does that mean I get the status and the privilege of a doctor now? No way.

You are either capable or not, why go back on your own words?

It is not about anything other than capability.

I have no idea what you are saying.

Because you do not have the capability.

I am quite comfortable with my position and confident that if any humiliation should befall me in this debate, it most likely won't be coming from you. You can keep your chance for me to retract my statement; I don't need it.
I have never, in my life, seen the pieces and parts of dead men used as political banners as I have seen with the pieces and parts of fetuses by pro lifers.

I will use your comment against you very soon, it will be interesting to see your opinion.
 
You are either capable or not, why go back on your own words?

It is not about anything other than capability.

Potentiality does not carry the same value as actuality. Potentiality and capability are not the same.

Because you do not have the capability.

Because I can't read minds and determine your intentions...

I will use your comment against you very soon, it will be interesting to see your opinion.

I will be interested to see what you come up with.
 
Potentiality does not carry the same value as actuality. Potentiality and capability are not the same.

Never disputed that.

I asked you if a foetus is not capable of desire, how did you come to have the capability?

Because I can't read minds and determine your intentions...

Exactly! You have just given a true example of something that a foetus is not capable of.

I will be interested to see what you come up with.

Sure you will.
 
Never disputed that.

I asked you if a foetus is not capable of desire, how did you come to have the capability?



Exactly! You have just given a true example of some thing that a foetus is not capable of.



Sure you will.

A fetus is not capable of desire until it has certain biological structures in place. It has potential, but no actual capability. You are quickly losing my interest here, sport.
 
You desire, you were a foetus.

So to say foetuses are not capable of desire is false, as we are living proof that they do.

"We" are not fetuses. "Was" is PAST tense, meaning it "IS" no longer. Do we have to explain the meaning of "IS"?




Ah, you agree with me, excellent!

I doubt it.
 
A fetus is not capable of desire until it has certain biological structures in place. It has potential, but no actual capability. You are quickly losing my interest here, sport.

No! A foetus has no capability of single handedly defeating the British army with a blindfold on whilst reading eight books at once, however it is capable of desire since we fulfilled that capability, see the difference, sport?
 
No! A foetus has no capability of single handedly defeating the British army with a blindfold on whilst reading eight books at once, however it is capable of desire since we fulfilled that capability, see the difference, sport?

Interest officially lost. It has no actual capability. It only has the potential to develop capability. We had this discussion months ago. :yawn:

You have yourself a nice night, now. Enjoy.
 
No! A foetus has no capability of single handedly defeating the British army with a blindfold on whilst reading eight books at once, however it is capable of desire since we fulfilled that capability, see the difference, sport?

Oooh, he really pwned you there, Jall. :roll:

Weeping, creeping, four-legged Christ. The very idea that these people think anyone's actually going to pass legislation based on such poppycock.

:monkey
 
Interest officially lost. It has no actual capability. It only has the potential to develop capability. We had this discussion months ago. :yawn:

You have yourself a nice night, now. Enjoy.



No! A sperm has the potential to have capabilities.

A foetus has the capability, because it is human, and humans are capable of desire.

Funny how you suddenly lost interest.
 
Personally, I don't believe in human sacrifice. In ancient cultures people sacrificed their children in the open upon altars of stone to pagan idols. In today's world child sacrifice is performed more efficiently; before they are born and on the altar of self. In my opinion...it's the same ol' girl...just a different dress.

The only exception I feel is necessary is to save the life of the mother.
 
There is no 39th week of pregnancy unless something is wrong. Care to be just a little more hysterical. :doh



Private molestation of a child infringes on that child's rights. Society protects weaker persons.

Marrying 9 year olds is an infringement of that 9 year old's rights and minors cannot be coerced into contracts because...never mind. I have already seen the standard of intellectual dishonesty I am dealing with here...
There is no 39th week of pregnancy unless something is wrong. Care to be just a little more hysterical.


No, this is hysterical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rofl

Full term is 40 weeks!!!!!:rofl :rofl :rofl

We are on our fourth pregnancy. My first child was born from an induced labor at 41 weeks!! My second was a c-section at 40 weeks! My third child was born at 39 weeks!

It's this kind of vast and extreme arrogant ignorance that causes people to believe it is OK to murder unborn babies to begin with!

I hope you don't feel like too much of a fool. But on the other hand, a bit of humility might help you to get on the right path from the foolish path you have been traveling.
 
Originally Posted by jallman
Bigotry would only be if I discriminated based on sex, religion, race, sexual orientation, age, or creed. I discriminate against a zygote because cells do not carry the same worth as a developed human being (here we go with the quibbling over definitions again) no matter how you spin it.

Originally Posted by jallman

a person who is intolerant of opinions which differ from his own

Originally Posted by jallman
As is the "point", and I do use that descriptor loosely, that I am bigoted against zygotes. Prejudiced, yes, but bigoted...not even close.


Are you definition surfing to find a way to exclude your particular brand of prejudice?
How exactly do you define “bigot” aside from one who is prejudiced against a particular group of human beings? (...or do I need to keep saying human “entities” because you're being such a semantics Nazi?)


PLEASE NOTE: in your 1st definition, you even demonstrate your ageist bigotry by differentiating the zygote based on his/her status as a "developed" human being.


Originally Posted by jallman
I judge their right to life based on their capacity for certain traits. A zygote cannot exhibit the capacity to even be aware of itself, let alone exhibit cognition, thought, desire, or any other expression nor has it ever been capable of such.

You better look up the word “capacity” before you make this assertion, jallman. Capacity includes potentiality and we know a ZEF (or rather that tiny, new human being) has the “potential” to grow into a human you consider worthy of life—he/she’s a “totiPOTENT” cell.
 
No, this is hysterical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rofl

Full term is 40 weeks!!!!!:rofl :rofl :rofl

We are on our fourth pregnancy. My first child was born from an induced labor at 41 weeks!! My second was a c-section at 40 weeks! My third child was born at 39 weeks!

Don't laugh too hard, the last laugh...While a pregnancy is usually referred to as 40 weeks, it is CALCULATED from the last menstrual period, but conception usually takes place 2 weeks after that.


Pregnancy Due Date Months Weeks Days Count Down Calculator - JavaScript code


"It's hard to predict exactly, but our calculator can give you an idea.
An average human pregnancy lasts for about 280 days or 40 weeks from the date of the last menstrual period (LMP). Traditionally, it has been calculated as 10 lunar months, or in terms of the modern calendar - 9 months and 7 days. Fertilisation however, occurs (considering an average menstrual cycle of 28 days) 14 days after the last periods. Thus, the actual duration of a human pregnancy (gestation period) is 280 - 14 = 266 days."
 
No! A sperm has the potential to have capabilities.

A foetus has the capability, because it is human, and humans are capable of desire.

Funny how you suddenly lost interest.

C Foster buddy, let me see if I lay this down striate.....if the ZEF does not qualify as a "person" today, then it is okay to abort it today.

That's about as cut and dry as I can say it.

When it comes down to potential -v- actual, potential only holds water when that potential is "viable".
 
C Foster buddy, let me see if I lay this down striate.....if the ZEF does not qualify as a "person" today, then it is okay to abort it today.

That's about as cut and dry as I can say it.

When it comes down to potential -v- actual, potential only holds water when that potential is "viable".

If that is your position I will hold you to it.

All we need discuss is whether viability is a valid reason for killing humans.
 
No, this is hysterical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rofl

Full term is 40 weeks!!!!!:rofl :rofl :rofl

We are on our fourth pregnancy. My first child was born from an induced labor at 41 weeks!! My second was a c-section at 40 weeks! My third child was born at 39 weeks!

It's this kind of vast and extreme arrogant ignorance that causes people to believe it is OK to murder unborn babies to begin with!

I hope you don't feel like too much of a fool. But on the other hand, a bit of humility might help you to get on the right path from the foolish path you have been traveling.

Don't worry...I don't feel at all like a fool. I make one mistake and get something wrong, it's cool, I look it up, verify the fact, and learn from it. My mistake. That's the difference between PC and PL...we tend to learn and grow from information whereas a PL person, when faced with facts, tends to throw his fingers in his ears and scream "LALALALALALALALALA". The root of it is that PL has a fact and reality phobia while PC is about truthful and useful dissemination of information.

You can carry on with your hysterics now.
 
Are you definition surfing to find a way to exclude your particular brand of prejudice?
How exactly do you define “bigot” aside from one who is prejudiced against a particular group of human beings? (...or do I need to keep saying human “entities” because you're being such a semantics Nazi?)


PLEASE NOTE: in your 1st definition, you even demonstrate your ageist bigotry by differentiating the zygote based on his/her status as a "developed" human being.




You better look up the word “capacity” before you make this assertion, jallman. Capacity includes potentiality and we know a ZEF (or rather that tiny, new human being) has the “potential” to grow into a human you consider worthy of life—he/she’s a “totiPOTENT” cell.

You don't have to definition surf to find the definition of bigot. My prejudicial attitude toward the zygote, which has no beliefs to represent or express, cannot be considered bigoted. How can I be bigoted toward the zygote when it has no opinions for me to be intolerant of.

The pettiness just keeps on coming...:rofl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom