This is EXACTLY what I believe. Are we the only ones that support womens right? everyone else is practically saying a women is worthless and have no right to choose if she want a baby or not and its her body she can do what she wants with it.
Supporting women's rights? I am all for equal rights. You just don't seem to understand THAT YOU HAVE NO
RIGHT TO KILL A BABY. Just because you put the word 'right' in front of it doesn't make it a right.
Seriously, what do you think gives you a "right" to kill an innocent baby?
This feeble attempt to justify abortion by claiming that a fetus is not a Human being is silly!
A fetus is a Human being in development, sure it doesn't have all the features that classify it
legally as a Human being yet, but screw the legalities(the law only dictates what Humans are allowed to do in the region that the law takes effect, a law has no real effect on reality), but that baby has the genome and it's building itself, call it a fetus or a baby, it's still a Human in development.
Gabbe, I'm going to respond to the reasonable stuff you said, but some of the stuff you said is just simply wrong.
Quote
A baby is a person, and an unborn baby , an unborn baby isn't a potential Human, it's a Human in development. Unless someone kills it or something goes wrong that unborn baby is going to be born and grow up.
Quote
2- Modman was the one that said unborn babies are potential Humans. Not me.
now that answers itself...
oh BTW, a unborn baby isn`t a potential human yet a human in development? Sorry, but a birth can go wrong and then it was only a potential human unless you are a determinist.
That was a bad argument, at the time I thought I present would it anyway to see what happened.
Quote
All sperm does is fertilize eggs.
AT NO TIME IN HISTORY have it happened that all the millions of sperm cells have fertilized a egg...
I'm pretty sure only one is needed to fertilize and egg, yet lots are ejaculated to cover the area better.
Is this an argument about killing reproductive fertilizing cells?
Quote
it's not her baby in terms of ownership
It`s her baby, if she wants to not give it birth, then so be it.
So I can buy you? How much will it cost?
no more time, i got to go to bed cya...
I'm slightly nocturnal myself.
arch and Omega is bein sexist..
We aren't being sexist, you're the ones unjustifiably accusing us of and using the term sexist to back up you're sexist beliefs.
I can back that up with one sentence: You are claiming that women exclusively should have a special right to kill a baby, Omega and I are the ones claiming that women have EQUAL rights and must respect others' rights as the rest of us must.
A baby is a Human being, he/she HAS RIGHTS. Especially a right to LIVE, just as the rest of us do.
Quote from: -Archmage- on May 31, 2010, 16:45:42
Murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of a person.
So for abortion to be murder it must:
1) be unlawful. You obviously haven't read up on Roe v. Wade because abortion has been legal in the US for over 35 years.
2) be killing. I agree it is killing, but of what? Killing your own cattle isn't murder, and neither is killing chimpanzees, who share 98% of our DNA. It could be argued (I will not) that killing a chimpanzee is murder 98 times out of 100.
3) be a person. I will demonstrate later in this post why fetuses are not people.
1- As previously stated: "the law only dictates what Humans are allowed to do in the region that the law takes effect, a law has no real effect on reality". I think a better word in the definition of murder would be immoral. But no, it has to be "politically correct".
2- It is the law that says killing cattle isn't murder, it is the law that says killing chimpanzees isn't murder.
3-Bring it on.
Quote from: -Archmage- on May 31, 2010, 16:45:42
Definition of potential: Existing in possibility
Quote from: -Archmage- on May 31, 2010, 16:45:42
A baby is a person, and an unborn baby , an unborn baby isn't a potential Human, it's a Human in development. Unless someone kills it or something goes wrong that unborn baby is going to be born and grow up.
I'm interested in how you can rationalize these two statements. If it isn't a human yet, it is a potential, possible human.
Yah, I know, bad argument.
Ah, but they are similar in an important way: by doing so, you will have destroyed the possibility, the potential for those humans. You see, having a full set of human DNA, like a fetus does, does not make it a human, only a potential human. We can create full-blown human beings from any full set of DNA. Even though the cells on your nose will not turn into human beings on their own, they have the potential. This is why killing potential humans is not equivalent to killing full-blown humans.
The cells on my nose aren't growing into Humans, a fetus is.
Also, it is impossible to have two full humans in one body when both have the same rights. One will always have veto power, and in this case it is the mother, because the fetus is dependent on the mother.
A baby is a separate being, whether the law realizes it or not. The baby needs the mother to grow, using a metal implement and severing it's life mercilessly is cruel and against all the morality that makes us who we are. Taking a pill that turns the baby off like a light would be more humane, but still any method of killing is evil when it cannot be justified, there is simply no good strong justification for killing an innocent little baby. The fetus may be dependent upon the mother, but killing it would be like an innocent kid needing my help to protect him from a bully that likes to beat people to death, and me picking up the kid and giving him to the bully(that's something I wouldn't do).
No, you're missing something. Do you honestly think that a baby and its mother are in the same medical status as a boy and his friend? Gimme a break. Jordan is not dependent on you. He would not die if you did. He does not receive all of his nutrients through an umbilical chord attached to you.
Yes, but I have a sense of morality, and I would help him if his life was dependant upon my actions. It wouldn't be my right to purposefully let him die.
Quick (rhetorical, because I know the answer is yes) question: doesn't Christianity teach that we're all damned unless we're saved? This puts all babies...in Hell. So we already know you don't believe one of these two: the statement quoted above about babies being innocent, or the Christian doctrine.
Something real quick for you: I don't believe in the "being saved" stuff. Absolutely no proof for it.
Quote from: -Archmage- on June 01, 2010, 18:42:39
Just like you with Evolution, you want to claim you have proof/examples, yet practically nothing appears, so you just have faith.
Um, no, in the evolution debate you repeated your old "arguments" (repetition of fallacies, a task more suited to computers, but then we call them spam bots!) until no one bothered typing anymore. In this case, the debate is yet young. I also see it as...a step in the right direction that you do not see faith as a reason for believing something.
I have seen so much proof against Evolution that I'm sure I could get you sent to an asylum for being ridiculously illogical beyond bounds, though I'm still building up my new armorment, so you don't need to worry yet.
Quote from: -Archmage- on June 01, 2010, 18:42:39
"'. . . Oh BTW, did I mention that I think infanticide should be legalized.'"
Sorry I have to bring this up, but according to the Bible, God was the one who came up with infanticide. Try reading Noah's tale a little more closely next time (the story does not turn out well for the babies or T-Rex).
You're forgetting that the Bible has probably been tampered with as it was passed down. That would be a pretty ingenious way to get people to pay money to be "saved". "God's gonna get ur babies if you don't pay this much money and get saved!" Even if the Bible hasn't been tampered with, try doing God's job and tell everyone that you can do it better than him.
You guys are atheists anyway, you don't care about life, Humans ARE objects to you.
This post was written over about an hour, and Modman's post came when I was just about done responding to everything else, I'm sure I repeated myself, but I'm to tired to spend another half-an-hour and revise this large post so please just ignore the repeats, and bits of disorder.
