U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-30-2009, 11:36 PM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,044,673 times
Reputation: 202

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I'm listing the stage of development at which it first attans a right to life, without being a parasite on another (sometimes) unwilling host. That is where "right to life" begins.

My answer is so profound, it deserves a new thread, but I am more considerate of the forum.

I do not have a right to attach tentacles to you and extract my life sustenance from you. If I cannot live without attaching myself to you and drawing sustenance from you, you have a right to deny me a right to life.
Who the hell says one stage determines a "right to life"? Who are you to assign that status? Are you God?

Please. We are dealing with 100% logic based on facts in my OP definition. We have no time or interest in your opinions. They have no relevance. If we allowed opinions about signficant stages of development, I could just as easily say "No. Life doesn't begin until a being attains cognitive reasoning which can't begin until a child is six to eight months old. Therefore we can kill a child up until six months of age." Then if I do that, what makes your opinion better than mine?

I predicted undiscerning readers would fail to read and comprehend my definition and try what you're trying. Please reread my definition. Allow it to soak in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2009, 12:45 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35885
Answer my questioin, Eeeeeee

Do I, or do I not, have a right, when I cannot live any other way, to latch onto you like a leech and extract whatever I need from you in order to continue my "right" to life? Your OP states that I do, for absolutely no other reason than because I am human. You have "irrefutably proved" that I am human, and therefore you have some rigid fixation that you have "irrefutably proved" that I an entitled to live, no matter what I have to do to you or anybody else, as my slave, in order to sustain myself.

You have put all your eggs in one basket---I am human, there are no other factors to be taken into consideration, and therefore, my right to life is absolutely inviolable, even if I take the entire planet and all creation and the entirety of humanity down to extinction in support of my entitlement to life. My human-ness is the only thing in the universe that is relevant to the question of whether I have a right to life.

That is your opening premise. Defend it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 08:06 AM
 
1,117 posts, read 1,748,369 times
Reputation: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeeee22895 View Post
In actuality, very few children were killed in Iraq other than those used as human shields by the terrorists and those openly killed by the terrorists and blamed on the U.S. We were extremely scrupulous in that detail. If we weren't, the Iraqi conflict would have been completely over 45 minutes after it started like Hiroshima was.

So you still can't explain to me how the slaughter of a million innocent babies last year saved lives? And please. Whining that "well, they would have turned out to be hardened criminals had they been born" just doesn't wash. There isn't a shred of plausibility in that kooky claim.
Oh good grief. You really just don't get it, do you?

I'm NOT arguing that abortions save lives (although in many cases, they save the mother's life). YOU are arguing that killing is justifiable if it saves lives. You are arguing that it is okay to take a life in order to save a life.

I am calling you hypocritical because you cannot condone killing in some circumstances, and then turn around and say abortions are immoral because it is the taking of human life. And that is EXACTLY what you have argued in both your threads. You have argued that you have bonafied "proof" that embryos are human beings, and therefore, it is immoral to kill them.

And I am telling you that it is hypocritical to selectively decide WHO you think it is okay to kill, based on your personal agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 08:38 AM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,044,673 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Answer my questioin, Eeeeeee

Do I, or do I not, have a right, when I cannot live any other way, to latch onto you like a leech and extract whatever I need from you in order to continue my "right" to life? Your OP states that I do, for absolutely no other reason than because I am human. You have "irrefutably proved" that I am human, and therefore you have some rigid fixation that you have "irrefutably proved" that I an entitled to live, no matter what I have to do to you or anybody else, as my slave, in order to sustain myself.

You have put all your eggs in one basket---I am human, there are no other factors to be taken into consideration, and therefore, my right to life is absolutely inviolable, even if I take the entire planet and all creation and the entirety of humanity down to extinction in support of my entitlement to life. My human-ness is the only thing in the universe that is relevant to the question of whether I have a right to life.

That is your opening premise. Defend it.
You want to latch onto me? I don't think that would do you much good, dear. But to address your odd fixation on the natural process of mothers carrying their young, I don't see the slightest problem with it. If the mother didn't want it, she should have made the decision earlier to keep her legs closed. Now she's created a huiman life and she may not disrupt that human life.

I'm having hard time seeing how carrying a child translates to 'taking the entire planet down to extinction". Could you explain the relationship here?

It's getting downright weird in here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 08:41 AM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,044,673 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerCaliforniaGirl View Post
Oh good grief. You really just don't get it, do you?

I'm NOT arguing that abortions save lives (although in many cases, they save the mother's life). YOU are arguing that killing is justifiable if it saves lives. You are arguing that it is okay to take a life in order to save a life.

I am calling you hypocritical because you cannot condone killing in some circumstances, and then turn around and say abortions are immoral because it is the taking of human life. And that is EXACTLY what you have argued in both your threads. You have argued that you have bonafied "proof" that embryos are human beings, and therefore, it is immoral to kill them.

And I am telling you that it is hypocritical to selectively decide WHO you think it is okay to kill, based on your personal agenda.
Dear, for the fifth time, self-defense is a universally recognized acceptable reason for killing. So I assume this 40-million-strong army of American babies slaughtered since 1973 posed a mortal threat to you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeeee22895 View Post
You want to latch onto me? I don't think that would do you much good, dear. But to address your odd fixation on the natural process of mothers carrying their young, I don't see the slightest problem with it. If the mother didn't want it, she should have made the decision earlier to keep her legs closed. Now she's created a huiman life and she may not disrupt that human life.

I'm having hard time seeing how carrying a child translates to 'taking the entire planet down to extinction". Could you explain the relationship here?

It's getting downright weird in here.
Oh, now I understand. If I go out and walk around without a face mask, and contract swine flu, and the virus wants to take over my body and suck life out of me, it has a right to do so, because I should have defended myself from letting the virus get ahold of me in the first place. Because I did not take the necessary precautions, and I took risks that enabled the virus to enter my system, I have given up my right to object to it or take any steps to protect me from the virus taking over my body and using it for its own selfish purposes, motivated purely by its instinct for self-preservation.. Thank you. You have made your case perfectly clear. You're right---that is so profound, it deserves a new thread all in itself.

It is not a question of whether I want to latch on to you, but whether I have a right to. You have just "proved" that I do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 10:08 AM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,044,673 times
Reputation: 202
[quote=jtur88;8598798....and the virus wants to take over my body and suck life out of me, it has a right to do so....[/quote]

A virus "wants" to? A virus has rights? LOL. We're getting into looneyville now, aren't we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeeee22895 View Post
A virus "wants" to? A virus has rights? LOL. We're getting into looneyville now, aren't we?
So, now your "irrefutable proof" depends on the premise that the human species is the only one that has natural biological rights to exist.

Prove that, please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Here and There
2,539 posts, read 3,276,905 times
Reputation: 3766
[quote=Eeeee22895;8598660]

If the mother didn't want it, she should have made the decision earlier to keep her legs closed. Now she's created a huiman life and she may not disrupt that human life.

Well, NOW we have arrived at the real point you are were trying to make. People like *you* are so totally twisted in their thinking. What about a man keeping his d**k is his pants, where is THAT comment? You know what, I think for the sake of me not getting booted off these boards, I am going to have to ignore you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2009, 11:18 AM
 
1,330 posts, read 1,044,673 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
So, now your "irrefutable proof" depends on the premise that the human species is the only one that has natural biological rights to exist.

Prove that, please.
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait and going into looneyville. Feel free to abort all the cats, dogs, and chickens you want to. Fine with me. Don't tell me. You would oppose the abortion of animals. Nothing would surprise me with you people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top