89 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 17 November 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

Yes conjoined twins is an excellent example /analogy of a mother and child connection.

An excellent example of your comprehension skills. The biology and formation of conjoined is very different to that of a mother and child.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 18 November 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

An excellent example of your comprehension skills. The biology and formation of conjoined is very different to that of a mother and child.

Mmmmmmmm. You do realize that you are mouthing off to someone who teaches comprehension dont you?!?!?!?

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 18 November 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

Mmmmmmmm. You do realize that you are mouthing off to someone who teaches comprehension dont you?!?!?!?

Apparently you claim to be a teacher too, need I say more?

[Mr Walker]

Taylor Reints, on 18 November 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

Note that a person with a disorder is COMPLETELY different from an unviable fetus.



A fetus is Homo sapiens, and just because it is human means it is not OK to kill; even though there is no problem killing an animal?

  I have never been speaking of unviable fetuses. Only viable ones The principles we are discussing cut across many  types of humans, including others unable to argue their own cause. In this respect a fetus and a person in a coma, or a child severely disabled, or an elderly man with altzheimers, are all very similar They require the protection of others because, while human, they are unable to defend them selves or plead their own rights..

Yes  of course. Humans are a separate  form of animal because of our level of self awareness and sapience. That is the reason why, since the dawn of history, humans have distinguished between killing a human and killing an animal. Humans recognise consequence, cause and effect, the permanent condition of death, and many other intellectual/cognitive recognitions, which cause us to value a human life above other life, and to make specific laws for its protection. But today, in many places, non human animals have more protections and rights than an unborn human.

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 18 November 2012 - 06:12 AM, said:

An excellent example of your comprehension skills. The biology and formation of conjoined is very different to that of a mother and child.

I've had you on ignore for a year and only begun responding to your posts recently, but this is an example of why  i blocked you. Actually many conjoined twiins share organs, parts of the same brain, circulatory system etc They are permanently attached without surgical intervention, and yet one  of them can't kill the other, without very special circumstances.

A mother and child are attached for most of the pregnacy by an umbilical cord, but are separate biological entiites, only joined for 9 months, and yet some people still think its ok just to kill the junior partner, without any special reasons or justifications at all.

Tell me. WHY should a woman's human rights; inherently, automatically, and completely, overide her unborn childs.. What is the ethical rationale for that belief.? It can ONLY be justified by deciding an unborn child is non human.

Ps do you understand the term analagous?

Edited by Mr Walker, 18 November 2012 - 07:45 AM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

I've had you on ignore for a year and only begun responding to your posts recently, but this is an example of why  i blocked you.

You know what, you're still on ignore.

Quote

Actually many conjoined twiins share organs, parts of the same brain, circulatory system etc They are permanently attached without surgical intervention, and yet one  of them can't kill the other, without very special circumstances.

A mother and child are attached for most of the pregnacy by an umbilical cord, but are separate biological entiites, only joined for 9 months, and yet some people still think its ok just to kill the junior partner, without any special reasons or justifications at all.

If you didn't notice, these are two very different scenarios.

Quote

Tell me. WHY should a woman's human rights; inherently, automatically, and completely, overide her unborn childs.. What is the ethical rationale for that belief.?

This has already been addressed, it is her own body, or does she give it up when there is a fetus inside her?
You certaintly thought so when you attempted to justify rape. And I expect nothing less of you.

[Mr Walker]

Rlyeh, on 18 November 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

You know what, you're still on ignore.

If you didn't notice, these are two very different scenarios.

This has already been addressed, it is her own body, or does she give it up when there is a fetus inside her?
You certaintly thought so when you attempted to justify rape. And I expect nothing less of you.

Pathetic.

Societies, values, and laws, change. You do realise that, until the second half of the 20th century, there was no such thing as rape in marriage in the western world, for example.

No married woman had a legal right to refuse sex from her husband at any time, or under any circumstances, because the law accepted (sometimes by implication ) that marriage vows gave explicit and ongoing consent by a woman for sex with her husband.

My point has always been that it is both stupid and pointless to judge the ethics and behaviour of any past society by our own values and ethical standards. If that was the case until 50 years ago, just try to imagine what it was like  500 or 2000 or 5000 years ago.
  On the other hand up, until about 50 years ago, a man who promised to marry a woman, and then reneged on that promise, commited a criminal offence called breach of promise, with severe penalties.

160 years ago. the supreme court of the united states ruled that a black man was not a human being. Times and values change And yes, a woman surrenders some of her rights to do what she wishes with her body when she is carrying a child. This is reflected in law, in many places, where a child born with damage caused by its mothers lifestyle while it was in the womb can sue the mother for damages.

[Jinxdom]

Speaking from the fetus's point of view is kind of idiotic in the sense that they have no choice in anything to begin with. You can't ask before if they want to be conceived in the first place so you cannot assume that they want to live. Assumption for what somebody wants is a huge problem not just on this subject but everything. (Look at what people assume whichever god a person follows want if you need a prime example)

So what do you? Don't assume a thing. Leave it to the consent of the mother. The mother's choice is the only one that matters here.  Anything that forces in to some option that she does not want is wrong.

Of course I see people who use actual abortions as birth control sickening when done in high numbers they need to learn responsibility and how to use preventive birth control but it's still not a reason to make it illegal.

"But but Jinxdom every person has a right to life". Prove it because last time I checked we all die. Sure we can have the right to live peacefully but a right to life? Good luck enforcing that because everybody dies(at least physically as far as proof goes and to cover my butt).

I crawled out of a women and spent every lingering day after to get back inside. That reason alone is why I believe in choice, choice/consent is the difference between rape and sex. I will never betray that trust.

[Beckys_Mom]

Rlyeh, on 18 November 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

lol. So they just float around inside of you?
Someone failed biology.

They are attached INSIDE the body   Not to the body.( like your post previously read ) ..They are called internal organs  for a reason .Medical experts will say they are connected inside   not they are attached to the body ..  When a woman is carrying a baby, it too is internal   it is attached inside her  NOT  to her body

When you said  the baby is attached TO her body.. you make it look as if it is on the outside..

My garage and conservatory  are attached   TO my house.. which indicates, they are attached on the OUTSIDE.. ,,It would look strange if they were attached INSIDE...  Hence why  I worded the sentence  -  attached to my house. I am indicating they are  on the outside  and not on the inside

Now do not come back to me again  pretending you do not follow .. I read enough clap trap on here as it is ..

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 18 November 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[Alienated Being]

Rlyeh, on 18 November 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Apparently you claim to be a teacher too, need I say more?

Yes, he claimed to be a teacher; on top of that, years ago he claimed that if a person allowed their child (I don't remember whose child, exactly) to go on top of a roof, and believe that if they jumped off, they would fly... they would actually be able to fly. I remember that conversation. It was around Christmas (December of 2009 I think) one year.

And this is why I don't take him very seriously. And this is an ad hominem attack, before you self-proclaimed experts in formal logic deconstruct my post.

And, sorry; I thought this was directed at Mr. Walker, because he claimed on different occasions to be a teacher... which I had a hard time believing. The misunderstanding was at the fault of my own, but my point still stands about Walker.

Edited by Alienated Being, 18 November 2012 - 02:28 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Beckys_Mom, on 18 November 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

When you said  the baby is attached TO her body.. you make it look as if it is on the outside..

Given the context, you have to be pretty daft to come to that conclusion.

Quote

My garage and conservatory  are attached   TO my house.. which indicates, they are attached on the OUTSIDE.. ,,It would look strange if they were attached INSIDE...  Hence why  I worded the sentence  -  attached to my house. I am indicating they are  on the outside  and not on the inside

You're arguing semantics. It is your assumption I was indicating the fetus was on the outside.

Quote

Now do not come back to me again  pretending you do not follow .. I read enough clap trap on here as it is ..

So don't add to it.

Edited by Rlyeh, 18 November 2012 - 03:00 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Pathetic.

Societies, values, and laws, change. You do realise that, until the second half of the 20th century, there was no such thing as rape in marriage in the western world, for example.

Notice I never said anything about marriage?
Anyway it is clear you're one of these people who thinks law makes right.

[SUPERSquatch]

Mr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

I have never been speaking of unviable fetuses. Only viable ones

Why would we be talking about viable fetuses, if Roe v. Wade made it a state interest for abortions after viability?

Mr Walker, on 18 November 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

Yes  of course. Humans are a separate  form of animal because of our level of self awareness and sapience. That is the reason why, since the dawn of history, humans have distinguished between killing a human and killing an animal. Humans recognise consequence, cause and effect, the permanent condition of death, and many other intellectual/cognitive recognitions, which cause us to value a human life above other life, and to make specific laws for its protection. But today, in many places, non human animals have more protections and rights than an unborn human.

So you are telling me that an unviable human fetus is more sapient and aware of its surroundings than any other adult animal?

Alienated Being, on 18 November 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Yes, he claimed to be a teacher; on top of that, years ago he claimed that if a person allowed their child (I don't remember whose child, exactly) to go on top of a roof, and believe that if they jumped off, they would fly... they would actually be able to fly. I remember that conversation. It was around Christmas (December of 2009 I think) one year.

Beckys_Mom, right? http://www.unexplain...35#entry3197675

Edited by Taylor Reints, 18 November 2012 - 07:40 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Rlyeh, on 18 November 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

You're arguing semantics. It is your assumption I was indicating the fetus was on the outside.

No, because there is a clear difference between the two  ( Inside and outside ) The baby is attached to her body = Indicated it is attached on the outside.. it does not indicate it is inside..  ...  There are many women who have their babies attached to their bodies... AFTER the kid is born, and they carry them in a baby harness lol

Anyhoo, I think you know exactly what I mean.. you just get chocked on a bit of that ego to admit you made the error  lol

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 18 November 2012 - 08:04 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Beckys_Mom, on 18 November 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

No, because there is a clear difference between the two  ( Inside and outside ) The baby is attached to her body = Indicated it is attached on the outside.. it does not indicate it is inside..  ...  There are many women who have their babies attached to their bodies... AFTER the kid is born, and they carry them in a baby harness lol

From the article I posted

"A UCSF-led research team has identified the first molecular step that allows a week-old human embryo to attach to the uterus."

Are you saying you read this as "embryo to attach to the outside of the uterus"?