Why pro-choice makes more sense

[rivrrat]

You are aware that philosophical arguments are changeable....right?

And?

Scientific arguments are changeable as well. What is your point?

That's why "person" is a lousy basis for determining human rights.

LOL And the existance, or lack thereof, of human DNA is a better basis? Sorry, I'm more than my DNA. And my human DNA isn't what makes me a person, or what makes me worthy of rights or protections under our laws.

 

[rivrrat]

It is not all persons have inalienable rights it is all men. In other words all mankind ie, ALL HUMANS. To deny that is to strip the basic tenet off all meaning.

Riiiight. I'm sure the framers of the document had a sperm and egg in mind when they wrote it. :roll:

Regardless, Two cells don't deserve "rights" and "protections" by way of just having come into existance. PEOPLE deserve rights and protections. Not cells.

 

[Felicity]

And?

Scientific arguments are changeable as well. What is your point?

Totalitarian regimes count on changeable criteria to justify atrocities. You advocate an atmosphere that invites human rights violations.

LOL And the existance, or lack thereof, of human DNA is a better basis? Sorry, I'm more than my DNA. And my human DNA isn't what makes me a person, or what makes me worthy of rights or protections under our laws.

Totipotent human existence indicated via DNA is an UNCHANGING criteria.

 

[WI Crippler]

Riiiight. I'm sure the framers of the document had a sperm and egg in mind when they wrote it. :roll:

Regardless, Two cells don't deserve "rights" and "protections" by way of just having come into existance. PEOPLE deserve rights and protections. Not cells.

So what are you made up of??

 

[Felicity]

Riiiight. I'm sure the framers of the document had a sperm and egg in mind when they wrote it. :roll:

they did mention our "posterity" were covered....

Regardless, Two cells don't deserve "rights" and "protections" by way of just having come into existance. PEOPLE deserve rights and protections. Not cells.

HUMAN BEINGS....not "people."

 

[talloulou]

LOL And the existance, or lack thereof, of human DNA is a better basis? Sorry, I'm more than my DNA. And my human DNA isn't what makes me a person, or what makes me worthy of rights or protections under our laws.

You act as if it's all complicated and we have an impossible time telling a living human organism from a scrap of human DNA in a flake of skin or drop of blood. It's not that complicated. Not all human DNA found everywhere represents a living human organsim. Scientists don't have any problem at all clearly defining some "human tissue" vs a living human organism. :roll: So to say you are more than your DNA is just hogwash. No one has pointed to your DNA falling down the drain in your shower and attempted to claim living humans are being washed away.

There is an absolute scientific and biological difference between DNA and a living human organism and I think you know this so making birdbrained statements like:

Sorry I'm more than my DNA...

is either genuine ignorance or feigned ignorance which borders on deceitful.

 

[rivrrat]

Totalitarian regimes count on changeable criteria to justify atrocities. You advocate an atmosphere that invites human rights violations.

:lol:

Totipotent human existence indicated via DNA is an UNCHANGING criteria.

No such thing as genetic mutations after the fact, eh? Not EVER gonna happen? Never gonna find a way to do it? Ever? You sure about that?

Anywho.. it's a stupid criteria. Cells are not worthy of rights or protections. They are... just cells. Just because they have the ability to replicate themselves like every other organism on this planet, doesn't make them special, or worthy of any protection.

 

[talloulou]

Riiiight. I'm sure the framers of the document had a sperm and egg in mind when they wrote it. :roll:

Regardless, Two cells don't deserve "rights" and "protections" by way of just having come into existance. PEOPLE deserve rights and protections. Not cells.

So how many cells are enough to earn the inalienable rights?

 

[rivrrat]

You act as if it's all complicated and we have an impossible time telling a living human organism from a scrap of human DNA in a flake of skin or drop of blood. It's not that complicated. Not all human DNA found everywhere represents a living human organsim. Scientists don't have any problem at all clearly defining some "human tissue" vs a living human organism. :roll: So to say you are more than your DNA is just hogwash. No one has pointed to your DNA falling down the drain in your shower and attempted to claim living humans are being washed away.

There is an absolute scientific and biological difference between DNA and a living human organism and I think you know this so making birdbrained statements like:

is either genuine ignorance or feigned ignorance which borders on deceitful.

Your criteria for "protections" and "rights" is based on the word HUMAN which is - DNA. If I didn't have human DNA, I'd have other DNA.

Being an organism does not make something worthy of protections and rights etiher.

So, again... your argument boils down to HUMAN. Which is rather irrelevant when discussing rights and protections. One doesn't need to be human to have rights and protections, and something can be human and not be afforded rights and protections. Your "criteria" eliminates the possibility of anything decidedly "non-human" having protections and rights. Whereas the more accurate and appropriate criteria of personhood - sentience, thought, capacity for choice, (so on and so forth) encompasses all organisms that fit that criteria.

Your criteria is prejudiced. :mrgreen:

 

[talloulou]

Anywho.. it's a stupid criteria. Cells are not worthy of rights or protections. They are... just cells. Just because they have the ability to replicate themselves like every other organism on this planet, doesn't make them special, or worthy of any protection.

I agree. And not all cells or even all clumps of cells can rightfully be called a living human organism and a member of the species homosapiens. Living human organisms can not be anything but HUMAN and thus part of mankind and thus deserving of the most basic of all rights.

 

[Felicity]

:lol:

is that an "evil" lol? Like some cartoon character? Interesting....

No such thing as genetic mutations after the fact, eh? Not EVER gonna happen? Never gonna find a way to do it? Ever? You sure about that?

You mean like partial hydatidiform moles? still human beings horribly deformed who die as a result...

Anywho.. it's a stupid criteria. Cells are not worthy of rights or protections. They are... just cells. Just because they have the ability to replicate themselves like every other organism on this planet, doesn't make them special, or worthy of any protection.

Great argument (NOT)....:roll:

 

[WI Crippler]

I think jallman has summed up the position of PC perfectly. Its not selfishness, its arrogance.

Arrogance, in that ones own life is ascribed more value than developing life, simply by exisiting longer. The PC crowd will cite that they are worth more, because they are contributors to society, while will deny the ability for others to come forth and contribute to that same society. Arrogance indeed........ I guess I have a new T-shirt for you guys......

 

[rivrrat]

I think jallman has summed up the position of PC perfectly. Its not selfishness, its arrogance.

Arrogance, in that ones own life is ascribed more value than developing life, simply by exisiting longer. The PC crowd will cite that they are worth more, because they are contributors to society, while will deny the ability for others to come forth and contribute to that same society. Arrogance indeed........ I guess I have a new T-shirt for you guys......

LMAO

That makes no sense. Why would I care if I'd been aborted, or even if my parents had chosen not to have me? Or even if I'd been miscarried? How would it possibly affect me at all given that I wouldn't have the capacity to realize I was alive in the first fricken place!.

The Anti-Choice "argument" about "how would you feel if..." is so blazingly stupid and illogical isn't not even worthy of discussion.

And yes, I am most certainly worth more than some microscopic organism that doesn't even have a fricken brain. If you think that is YOUR equal... that's certainly an issue you have with your own self-image. Don't project it onto me. :mrgreen:

 

[talloulou]

Your criteria for "protections" and "rights" is based on the word HUMAN which is - DNA. If I didn't have human DNA, I'd have other DNA.

If you're a living organism and you're a member of the species homosapiens then you are A HUMAN. You are included when people speak of man, mankind, ect. You are a human noun. A human being.

Being an organism does not make something worthy of protections and rights etiher.

No being an organism does not. Being a human organism does. You are a human organism. A member of the species homosapiens.

So, again... your argument boils down to HUMAN. Which is rather irrelevant when discussing rights and protections.

The only way being a human being can be irrelevant when discussing the rights of man and men is if certain men have the desire to not protect all men and instead only protect some. It can only be irrelevant if you've taken a basic tenet of our democracy and altered it so that it reads:

"All men are created equal EXCEPT..."

One doesn't need to be human to have rights and protections,

I agree. We protect land and animals with law.

and something can be human and not be afforded rights and protections.

Perhaps a human adjective such as human hair lying on the floor has no rights. But attempts to strip a particular human being of rights are loathsome and repugnant.

Your "criteria" eliminates the possibility of anything decidedly "non-human" having protections and rights.

It absolutely does not. That is a straight up freaking lie. Land and other animals may still be protected they do not however have basic inalienable rights that belong to all men, all humans. If new species are discovered, aliens visit the earth, ect new laws will be discussed regarding those and granting all humans inalienable rights in no way affects men from outer space. If we already attempt to currently claim that not all humans are people I'm absolutely certain that aliens and robots aren't given free immediate passes to personhood either.

Whereas the more accurate and appropriate criteria of personhood - sentience, thought, capacity for choice, (so on and so forth) encompasses all organisms that fit that criteria.

The great apes, monkeys, whales, dolphins are not persons or people. So your statement is bull$hit. We do not go around granting personhood and inalienable rights to non-humans expect in the case of the coorporation! Other than the coorporation there are NO other recognized non-human people. We don't give a $hit about sentience or brain power as it applies to the rest of the non-human animal kingdom!

Your criteria is prejudiced. :mrgreen:

Yours is meaningless and nothing more than a means to an end. Even you don't buy it. Why aren't you out fighting for the personhood of dolphins? :roll:

 

[WI Crippler]

LMAO

That makes no sense. Why would I care if I'd been aborted, or even if my parents had chosen not to have me? Or even if I'd been miscarried? How would it possibly affect me at all given that I wouldn't have the capacity to realize I was alive in the first fricken place!.

The Anti-Choice "argument" about "how would you feel if..." is so blazingly stupid and illogical isn't not even worthy of discussion.

And yes, I am most certainly worth more than some microscopic organism that doesn't even have a fricken brain. If you think that is YOUR equal... that's certainly an issue you have with your own self-image. Don't project it onto me. :mrgreen:

Oh I am pretty sure I am smarter than, and could whip the piss out of a two cell organism, no matter its genetic disposition. However, I am physically superior to you as well ( unless you are a german woman). How about I discriminate based on that, and do with you what I choose....You are still a mass of cells, no matter what way you cut it, but because you are human cells, you are afforded certain unalienable rights....

 

[talloulou]

Oh I am pretty sure I am smarter than, and could whip the piss out of a two cell organism, no matter its genetic disposition. However, I am physically superior to you as well ( unless you are a german woman). How about I discriminate based on that, and do with you what I choose....You are still a mass of cells, no matter what way you cut it, but because you are human cells, you are afforded certain unalienable rights....

Oh exactly. And if you physically harm her with your superior strength and she were to say die...well she would at that point be dead and thus completely unaffected by her demise because there would no longer be any her alive to care. :mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

Oh exactly. And if you physically harm her with your superior strength and she were to say die...well she would at that point be dead and thus completely unaffected by her demise because there would no longer be any her alive to care. :mrgreen:

Now...be nice talloulou...that would be injustice as well.... tsk...tsk....:naughty



.
.
.
.
.
:mrgreen: *snicker*

 

[talloulou]

The only ground prochoice has to stand on is the bodily autonomy crap and even there they have to prove that 9 months is too long a burden bear and thus worthy of giving one human permisison to kill another.

 

[talloulou]

Now...be nice talloulou...that would be injustice as well.... tsk...tsk....:naughty



.
.
.
.
.
:mrgreen: *snicker*

Of course it would. You wouldn't find me arguing that it wasn't. But that's the problem with these prochoice arguments....


.....they can be used against ANYONE.

 

[Felicity]

You go girl.....!!!!!:applaud arty

 

[WI Crippler]

You go girl.....!!!!!:applaud arty

Hey c'mon, how come I wasn't invited to the party. It should look like this...

arty :drink
talloulou, Felicty, WI Crippler

 

[rivrrat]

Oh I am pretty sure I am smarter than, and could whip the piss out of a two cell organism, no matter its genetic disposition. However, I am physically superior to you as well ( unless you are a german woman). How about I discriminate based on that, and do with you what I choose....You are still a mass of cells, no matter what way you cut it, but because you are human cells, you are afforded certain unalienable rights....

No, I'm afforded certain rights because I'm a person. Not because I'm human.

 

[rivrrat]

Oh exactly. And if you physically harm her with your superior strength and she were to say die...well she would at that point be dead and thus completely unaffected by her demise because there would no longer be any her alive to care. :mrgreen:

You are completely correct.

 

[WI Crippler]

No, I'm afforded certain rights because I'm a person. Not because I'm human.

Wrong, its called basic human rights, not basic people rights.

 

[talloulou]

No, I'm afforded certain rights because I'm a person. Not because I'm human.

There was a time in history where you'd have been exluded from the holy grail of personhood just as you aim to exclude fellow humans now. Personhood is flimsy and defined by others. Your admission or exclusion from the class depends on the politico of any given time period. If it was possible to exclude you yesteryear it's possible to exclude you tomorrow. I'm shocked that you hold so strongly to a label granted to you only by others. A label that can be stripped away in the same manner in which it was granted especially when we're raising generations on the idea that:

All men are created equal except....