Switch Theme:

20 questions liberals can't answer(Apparently)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/


You mean the guy who now is serving life in imprison for murder? You should be pro-life because of what some criminal did? I mean come on Whembly you can better than that.

Um...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




 whembly wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/


You mean the guy who now is serving life in imprison for murder? You should be pro-life because of what some criminal did? I mean come on Whembly you can better than that.

Um...


You might need to take a another try at explaining what it was you were saying?
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors


I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?

I am oppossed to the death penalty. I do no equate the two.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

I am anti-death penalty on the virtue that I want to avodid innocent people being killed at all cost, and belie in the human ability to change and grow, but I just say you are looking this a bit wrong.

It's not the argument that killing babies is OK (that isn't and is a thing pro-lifers invented to push their agenda), it's that a fetus, when not fully formed and conscious, is not alive, as such. You don't (generally) see pro-choice people argue for late term abortions, when we know the aborted fetus could survive, and is conscious.


I personally would like to see abortions bee easily and freely accessible, but rare. If we really want to stop abortion, we need only to get better sex education, that is not abstinence only.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors


I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?

I am oppossed to the death penalty. I do no equate the two.

I'm not asking you to equate (or not) the two.

Why do you opposed the death penatly? (there's a myriad of reason why folks do so).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 04:24:50


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors


I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?

I am oppossed to the death penalty. I do no equate the two.

I'm not asking you to equate the two.

Why do you opposed the death penatly? (there's a myriad of reason why folks do so).


Come on bro. He doesn't equate the two!

   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

I am anti-death penalty on the virtue that I want to avodid innocent people being killed at all cost, and belie in the human ability to change and grow, but I just say you are looking this a bit wrong.

That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.

It's not the argument that killing babies is OK (that isn't and is a thing pro-lifers invented to push their agenda), it's that a fetus, when not fully formed and conscious, is not alive, as such. You don't (generally) see pro-choice people argue for late term abortions, when we know the aborted fetus could survive, and is conscious.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

I personally would like to see abortions bee easily and freely accessible, but rare. If we really want to stop abortion, we need only to get better sex education, that is not abstinence only.

Actually... I'd posit that the first thing pro-lifers need to do... and AGRESSIVELY do... is to put their money right where their mouth is. That is: advance alternatives to abortion services. Charity homes, daycare assistance, etc...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

Here is my take, he killed what was viable and capable of thought and what was able to live outside the room. He is the type of person that gets good, ethical abortion doctors firebombed.
Oh yeah, I forgot about those "Pro-lifers" the firebomb and kill abortion doctors


I think you're missing my point: Weren't you opposed to the death penalty?

I am oppossed to the death penalty. I do no equate the two.

I'm not asking you to equate (or not) the two.

Why do you opposed the death penatly? (there's a myriad of reason why folks do so).

Several Reasons.
1: I detest the idea of "Eye for an eye"
2: You can possibly put down an innocent man
3: Its costs more to kill then it does to house
4: What if I go after someone who killed my wife? Am I justified for doing so? Even outside the law?

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 whembly wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/

I am anti-death penalty on the virtue that I want to avodid innocent people being killed at all cost, and belie in the human ability to change and grow, but I just say you are looking this a bit wrong.

That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.

It's not the argument that killing babies is OK (that isn't and is a thing pro-lifers invented to push their agenda), it's that a fetus, when not fully formed and conscious, is not alive, as such. You don't (generally) see pro-choice people argue for late term abortions, when we know the aborted fetus could survive, and is conscious.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive. And thus the death penalty and abortion are nothing alike. It makes not sense to argue with the two presented as facets. That, and I did read/watch this thing (can't remember which) where this guy said that abortion does not usually stop a child, but postpone it, because most people who have an abortion will have a baby down the line instead.


I personally would like to see abortions bee easily and freely accessible, but rare. If we really want to stop abortion, we need only to get better sex education, that is not abstinence only.

Actually... I'd posit that the first thing pro-lifers need to do... and AGRESSIVELY do... is to put their money right where their mouth is. That is: advance alternatives to abortion services. Charity homes, daycare assistance, etc...

I agree, but there does not seem to be much support for this on the main stage. It cost money, and nobody want's to give up anything or pay more taxes.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 04:31:38


Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

 whembly wrote:
 Blood Hawk wrote:
Spoiler:
 whembly wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
I support this compromise. No salting the skin off of babies, or shredding their bodies in vacuums in return for not killing criminals.


None of these things are happening to babies.

Feth your semantics.

Good way to argue.....
Completely Disregard your opponents position and telll him its wrong because you said it was wrong.
The point it, up to a certain point, a fetus is nothing more then a clump of cells vaguely resembling a human. It isnt capable of thought, it isnt capable of breathing or living outside its mother.
It is a clump of cells, like a cancer.

Here's my take...

If you oppose the death penalty on grounds that we shouldn't kill...

Then you ought to at least be strong pro-life.

Even further, if you opposed the death penalty because our society is imperfect, and thus an innocent man may potentially erroneously be killed...

Then you'd ought to be a VERY strong pro-life, if nothing else to avoid situation like this:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/photogallery/kermit-gosnell-gallery.html?curPhoto=1
http://www.toomanyaborted.com/gosnell/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/15/the-gosnell-case-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/


You mean the guy who now is serving life in imprison for murder? You should be pro-life because of what some criminal did? I mean come on Whembly you can better than that.

Um...

Yea sorry dude you are one that pissed the point. What Gosnell did was illegal and he is now paying the price, a life in prison with no chance of parole, of course the amusing thing here is that he took that as part of deal with the prosecutor in order to avoid the death penalty .

What Gosnell did is not the same as an innocent man getting killed on death row. One is a mistake (a lethal one but still), the other is illegal. Get the point?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 04:38:38


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Verviedi wrote:
Feth your semantics.


It's not "semantics" to call you on your blatant appeal to emotion. Talking about "babies" is meant to evoke images of someone's newborn child being tossed into a grinder and disposed of, not the reality of a fetus that is barely recognizable as human (if it's even that far into development).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.


So we agree then: easy access to abortion. Stuff like the Gosnell mess doesn't happen because abortion is legal (everything about what he was doing was already illegal), it happens when there is no better option. If abortion is easily available without all the conservative attempts to make it so difficult to get one that you give up there's no reason to resort to dangerous illegal options. You just go to a nice safe local doctor and get it done.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 04:46:02


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.


So when does a fetus become "alive"?

Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".

To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.

Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".

"The Omnissiah is my Moderati" 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.


So we agree then: easy access to abortion. Stuff like the Gosnell mess doesn't happen because abortion is legal (everything about what he was doing was already illegal), it happens when there is no better option. If abortion is easily available without all the conservative attempts to make it so difficult to get one that you give up there's no reason to resort to dangerous illegal options. You just go to a nice safe local doctor and get it done.

Actually... no we don't agree then.

I don't want it "easily available". I want it rare and not used as another form of contraceptive (ie, exception including life of the mother and rape/incest).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blood Hawk wrote:

Yea sorry dude you are one that pissed the point. What Gosnell did was illegal and he is now paying the price, a life in prison with no chance of parole, of course the amusing thing here is that he took that as part of deal with the prosecutor in order to avoid the death penalty .

What Gosnell did is not the same as an innocent man getting killed on death row. One is a mistake (a lethal one but still), the other is illegal. Get the point?

Let's agree to disagree. Cool?

Otherwise, we'll get stuck in circles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Alex C wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.


So when does a fetus become "alive"?

Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".

To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.

Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".

That answer is "whenever they feel like it is".

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 04:57:40


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Alex C wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.


So when does a fetus become "alive"?

Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".

To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.

Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".

When it can viably live outside the mother. That is when.
And do you consider a benign tumor "Alive" because that is what a Blastocyst is. A clump of cells that has the potential to be life

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 Alex C wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.


So when does a fetus become "alive"?

Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".

To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.

Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".

When it can viably live outside the mother. That is when.
And do you consider a benign tumor "Alive" because that is what a Blastocyst is. A clump of cells that has the potential to be life



Tumors don't turn into baby humans.

   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






Neither do all babies. Some can die.
Do we charge the mother with murder if she miscarries then?

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 Alex C wrote:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:

That to anyone who is pro-choice abotion is not killing, merely not allowing a life to occur, because a fetus is not alive.


So when does a fetus become "alive"?

Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".

To me, the point at which to define a fetus' status as "a living human" is conception. I.e. It is, has, and always will be "a living human". It just makes logical sense to me.

Not trying to be snarky here, I'm just always genuinely curious to hear pro-choice supporters' definition of when a fetus is "alive".

By the time it is conscious and can survive without being attached to the mother. I'm not a doctor, but I think it's something like during the third trimester (not sure). Essentially, when it is an individual. That is only for chosen abortion, obviously. When it comes down to the life of the mother, It's is until it is born, although every effort should be taken to see the fetus or baby survives. It may seem cruelly logical, but I value the life of an adult over that of a not-yet-born child. They are a blank slate that can be created again, the mother already exists as an active human in this world.

This should not be taken as an answer for all pro-choice people, just as my personal view. Very rough answer, as I am pretty sleepy right now .

Also, don't worry, It didn't seem snarky to me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 05:02:28


Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Neither do all babies. Some can die.
Do we charge the mother with murder if she miscarries then?



Babies don't turn into baby humans because they already are baby humans.

And no, nobody is saying or implying that. Why would you ask a question like that?

   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Hordini wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Neither do all babies. Some can die.
Do we charge the mother with murder if she miscarries then?



Babies don't turn into baby humans because they already are baby humans.

And no, nobody is saying or implying that. Why would you ask a question like that?

Because, if a baby is alive from the moment of conception, and the mother accidentally does something too miscarry it, is it not murder? If so how is abortion murder, but her accidently killing the baby not?

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in ca
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta




As a liberal, the reason I can't take pro lifers seriously is that they don't understand that some babies can kill the woman carrying them. In their pro life stance, they'd rather see the mom die than allow an abortion. If you think your opinion on the matter should be enforced upon another human, then you should take a share of the burden to make sure that child is raised properly and has proper health care and nutrition. ie gladly support welfare & obamacare.

Lastly, even god was pro abortion (see numbers 5) he used to perform them.

 
   
Made in jp
Fixture of Dakka





Japan

Gotta love the whole conservatives vs liberals it reminds me of this



Squidbot;
"That sound? That's the sound of me drinking all my paint and stabbing myself in the eyes with my brushes. "
My Doombringer Space Marine Army
Hello Kitty Space Marines project
Buddhist Space marine Project
Other Projects
Imageshack deleted all my Images Thank you! 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el




 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Gotta love the whole conservatives vs liberals it reminds me of this



Context?
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Gotta love the whole conservatives vs liberals it reminds me of this



In America it motley is if you do the normal D's=liberal, R's=conservative thing.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Neither do all babies. Some can die.
Do we charge the mother with murder if she miscarries then?



Babies don't turn into baby humans because they already are baby humans.

And no, nobody is saying or implying that. Why would you ask a question like that?

Because, if a baby is alive from the moment of conception, and the mother accidentally does something too miscarry it, is it not murder? If so how is abortion murder, but her accidently killing the baby not?



I don't recall posting that I believed one way or the other that a baby is alive from the moment of conception.

In answer to your second question, accidental killings usually aren't considered murder.

   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Alex C wrote:
So when does a fetus become "alive"?


It is always alive, but merely being alive does not grant full status as a person (otherwise you'd be committing murder if you removed cancer cells).

Genuinely curious, because I see this argument made all the time by pro-choice individuals, but none can ever seem to tell me the point at which a fetus transforms from "a bunch of cells" into "live human being".


There is no easy answer, because it's not a black and white thing. The best way to decide is based on mental development, and that's a steady process from nothing to fully human. There's no discrete point where a brain is developed to the point where it becomes a "person", but one second earlier it isn't. So there's a gray area where we can't be sure with modern knowledge and technology. However, this isn't really a problem because the vast majority of abortions happen well before that gray area, when the fetus indisputably does not have any kind of "personhood" yet. And the vast majority of abortions that happen near or after that gray area happen because of serious medical problems, not simply because the woman decides she doesn't want a child anymore.

 whembly wrote:
I want it rare and not used as another form of contraceptive (ie, exception including life of the mother and rape/incest).


Your wish is already granted. The whole "abortion as a contraceptive" thing is a conservative straw man, if people are given access to cheaper, easier, and safer alternatives then very few people are going to ignore those alternatives and think "it's ok, I'll just get an abortion every time I get pregnant".

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Illinois

 whembly wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Yea sorry dude you are one that pissed the point. What Gosnell did was illegal and he is now paying the price, a life in prison with no chance of parole, of course the amusing thing here is that he took that as part of deal with the prosecutor in order to avoid the death penalty .

What Gosnell did is not the same as an innocent man getting killed on death row. One is a mistake (a lethal one but still), the other is illegal. Get the point?

Let's agree to disagree. Cool?

Otherwise, we'll get stuck in circles.

Whatever, the two aren't equivalent. So sure agree to disagree.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/01 05:15:46


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Feth your semantics.


It's not "semantics" to call you on your blatant appeal to emotion. Talking about "babies" is meant to evoke images of someone's newborn child being tossed into a grinder and disposed of, not the reality of a fetus that is barely recognizable as human (if it's even that far into development).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.


So we agree then: easy access to abortion. Stuff like the Gosnell mess doesn't happen because abortion is legal (everything about what he was doing was already illegal), it happens when there is no better option. If abortion is easily available without all the conservative attempts to make it so difficult to get one that you give up there's no reason to resort to dangerous illegal options. You just go to a nice safe local doctor and get it done.



I say at this point you are the one appealing to emotion when you put forth the idea that all abortions are of cells barely recognizable as human.
Late term abortions are designed to kill a baby that is fully formed. Some fairly nasty pictures of large numbers of fully formed babies that have been aborted are easy enough to google to demstrate the error of your statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Neither do all babies. Some can die.
Do we charge the mother with murder if she miscarries then?


That doesn't even make sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:
As a liberal, the reason I can't take pro lifers seriously is that they don't understand that some babies can kill the woman carrying them. In their pro life stance, they'd rather see the mom die than allow an abortion. If you think your opinion on the matter should be enforced upon another human, then you should take a share of the burden to make sure that child is raised properly and has proper health care and nutrition. ie gladly support welfare & obamacare.

Lastly, even god was pro abortion (see numbers 5) he used to perform them.


Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/01 08:55:52


 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

Relapse wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Verviedi wrote:
Feth your semantics.


It's not "semantics" to call you on your blatant appeal to emotion. Talking about "babies" is meant to evoke images of someone's newborn child being tossed into a grinder and disposed of, not the reality of a fetus that is barely recognizable as human (if it's even that far into development).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
That is indeed... my point. If you want to avoid killing a possible innocent death row inmate, then it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to cultivate an environment that led to the Gosnell situation. Because, at the end of the day, Gosnell abused the laws to line his pockets.


So we agree then: easy access to abortion. Stuff like the Gosnell mess doesn't happen because abortion is legal (everything about what he was doing was already illegal), it happens when there is no better option. If abortion is easily available without all the conservative attempts to make it so difficult to get one that you give up there's no reason to resort to dangerous illegal options. You just go to a nice safe local doctor and get it done.



I say at this point you are the one appealing to emotion when you put forth the idea that all abortions are of cells barely recognizable as human.
Late term abortions are designed to kill a baby that is fully formed. Some fairly nasty pictures of large numbers of fully formed babies that have been aborted are easy enough to google to demstrate the error of your statement.




That's not an appeal to emotion, appeal to emotion is something like "Think of the children."

Also, for the most part, people are not talking about late-tern abortions. I don't even think it is legal for an abortion by choice at those late staged, only being allowed when the life of the mother is at stake.

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Relapse wrote:
Of course there are going to have to be abortions happen if the mother is at serious risk.

Why 'of course'?

At what level of risk does preserving the mother's life become more important than preserving the baby?

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Relapse wrote:
I say at this point you are the one appealing to emotion when you put forth the idea that all abortions are of cells barely recognizable as human.


No, it's simple fact. Most abortions happen at that point.

Late term abortions are designed to kill a baby that is fully formed. Some fairly nasty pictures of large numbers of fully formed babies that have been aborted are easy enough to google to demstrate the error of your statement.


Yes, but how many of those abortions involved women who just decided at the last second that they don't want a baby after all? I think you'll find that most of them involved serious medical problems where an abortion was either necessary to protect the mother or an act of mercy for a baby that was only going to experience a short and painful life if it had been born. This category, by the way, should include virtually all legal late-term abortions, since the cutoff point for legal "because I want to" abortions is back at the "barely recognizable as human" stage.

(And really, want to end voluntary late-term abortions? Don't put obstacles in the way of getting one earlier.)

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: