Abortion and Capital Punishment

[Solarys]

1) I never said otherwise and zygotes aren't removed from the body in the normal cases,

wrong
most zygotes never make implantation

2) It would be easy for you to just link the source. You brought it into discussion. Are you implying that i should google for sources to figure out what you are talking about now ?

you need a source for what cloning is, fine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning

3) No tumor or organs grow to a fully formed human being. But fetuses do.

most don't

1) "there is a reason why i added "not like sperm or ova" in there."

2) If you are trying that hard to avoid linking what i asked you to, then feel free.

3) And we are talking about the ones that "can". It is better to let 100 criminals escape than let one innocent suffer.

[Ceannairceach]

I'm in favor of both.

So you're alright with the possibility--nay, likelihood--that someone innocent may be executed due to a wrongful conviction?

[Solarys]

A zygote is combined, and isnt human, sperm cells and eggs are the second part but not combined.

But a zygote of a human can grow into only a human being just like the sperm cells and ova. But yeah the difference is in the perspective.

One point reaaly:
One premous the probirth movement is dependent on is a the new Blood liable: the premous of fetal individuality. Therefore, believes (and claims) like "a fetus is a person/a human/a baby," "a fetus has an interest" (witch includes "a fetus has rights"), any use of the word killing/murder/homicide in connection with fetuses, et al. are all equavlant to the statement "all kikes must be killed because they use Cristion babes as sacrifices in there rituals." (I forget the attribution, Gerbils many?)

Um... I am really trying not to get offensive here, but i can't understand with the way you type. Sorry.

[Solarys]

I'm in favor of both.

So you're alright with the possibility--nay, likelihood--that someone innocent may be executed due to a wrongful conviction?

If you are going to condemn innocents to death by abortion, i don't think something like that is what you need to be worried about.

[Mavorpen]

3) And we are talking about the ones that "can". It is better to let 100 criminals escape than let one innocent suffer.

No it fucking isn't. Because then you allow 100 more innocents suffer as a result. What a stupid idea to run a society by.

[Sociobiology]

wrong
most zygotes never make implantation




you need a source for what cloning is, fine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning

most don't

1) "there is a reason why i added "not like sperm or ova" in there."

actually they are removed in the exact same fashion

2) If you are trying that hard to avoid linking what i asked you to, then feel free.

If you wanted something besides cloning I have no idea what it is.

3) And we are talking about the ones that "can".

but they can't without conflicting with the rights of the mother.
It is not that fetuses do not have rights , it is their rights lose when in direct conflict with the rights of an adult.
That is literally why babies cannot be terminated under normal circumstances, because their rights are no longer in direct conflict with an adults.

It is better to let 100 criminals escape than let one innocent suffer.

yes and?

[New Libertarian States]

A zygote is combined, and isnt human, sperm cells and eggs are the second part but not combined.

But a zygote of a human can grow into only a human being just like the sperm cells and ova. But yeah the difference is in the perspective.

One point reaaly:
One premous the probirth movement is dependent on is a the new Blood liable: the premous of fetal individuality. Therefore, believes (and claims) like "a fetus is a person/a human/a baby," "a fetus has an interest" (witch includes "a fetus has rights"), any use of the word killing/murder/homicide in connection with fetuses, et al. are all equavlant to the statement "all kikes must be killed because they use Cristion babes as sacrifices in there rituals." (I forget the attribution, Gerbils many?)

Um... I am really trying not to get offensive here, but i can't understand with the way you type. Sorry.

It has the POSSIBILITY.
That's they key word..
If it was 100% success rate, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.
But, we simply don't know.
And I'd rather the human being make the decision of rather to keep a lump of tissue inside them, rather then have no choice be presented to them, at all.

[Blakk Metal]

Adoption is all well and great, however you're forgetting the part where that doesn't solve the issue of not wanting to be pregnant and give birth, and the fact that just like how a rapist doesn't get the right to use my body, neither does a fetus.

Then you should have refrained from having sex unless you are sure that it won't result in pregnancy or you should be willing to face the consequences.

Equating a fetus to cancer (better alternative to a rapist) is simply disgusting.

"Lethal injection is all well and great, however you're forgetting the part where that doesn't solve the issue of an execution for jaywalking being a cruel and unusual punishment, and the fact that just like how a man doesn't get the right to shoot a guy for banging his wife, neither does the government for jaywalking."

Then you should have refrained from jaywalking unless you are sure that it won't result in capture or you should be willing to face the consequences.

Equating the execution of a jaywalker to murder is simply disgusting.

Turns out, abortion is a great way of dealing with the consequences of unprotected sex.


It's not disgusting. What's disgusting is your immoral, depraved, perverse, anti-Christian, murderous, anti-life belief that a non-person is somehow entitled to legal precedence over a person.

Saying abortion is a great way of dealing with it is like saying killing your employees rapist is a great way of avoiding paying their wages STD complications. It is murder justified homicide, nothing less.

Also life is life, just because it isn't a person yet he inflicts mayhem and the risk of death doesn't mean that you should get to do whatever you want with it him. Like i said, accept the consequences or don't attempt risking it.

Corrected.

[The ivain isles]

So if I evict somebody from my property, I can terminate their life if they don't leave fast enough?

no, you can however have them removed by force.

with conjoined twins or mother/fetuses, two sets of rights are in conflict, and the surviving twins rights supersede the rights of the dependent one, just as the woman's rights supersede the fetus' rights.

Really? I have to give notice for an eviction, even then, during that time, my convenience supercedes their right to that notice? And yes, a woman's right to life does supersede a foetuses right to life, but her choice to terminate it doesn't.

[Sociobiology]

no, you can however have them removed by force.

with conjoined twins or mother/fetuses, two sets of rights are in conflict, and the surviving twins rights supersede the rights of the dependent one, just as the woman's rights supersede the fetus' rights.

Really? I have to give notice for an eviction, even then, during that time, my convenience supercedes their right to that notice? And yes, a woman's right to life does supersede a foetuses right to life, but her choice to terminate it doesn't.

her right to her body supersedes the fetuses, just as a conjoined twins does.

[Sociobiology]

3) And we are talking about the ones that "can". It is better to let 100 criminals escape than let one innocent suffer.

No it fucking isn't. Because then you allow 100 more innocents suffer as a result. What a stupid idea to run a society by.

actually it is the one we use, it is why we have presumed innocence, the prosecution must demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, this is done to prevent the innocent from suffering.

[Solarys]

1) "there is a reason why i added "not like sperm or ova" in there."

actually they are removed in the exact same fashion

2) If you are trying that hard to avoid linking what i asked you to, then feel free.

If you wanted something besides cloning I have no idea what it is.

3) And we are talking about the ones that "can".

but they can't without conflicting with the rights of the mother.
It is not that fetuses do not have rights , it is their rights lose when in direct conflict with the rights of an adult.
That is literally why babies cannot be terminated under normal circumstances, because their rights are no longer in direct conflict with an adults.

It is better to let 100 criminals escape than let one innocent suffer.

yes and?

1) Not in the exact same amount or rate.

2) As in you can take a cell from stomach lining and clone the entire human that way. I might have lived under a rock in this case, but the last time i checked that wasn't possible.

3) And that is what i am arguing about. That the mother should not get any more rights regarding the matter than the fetus unless it poses a medical risk for the mother.

3b) As in just because not all fetuses grow up to become human doesn't mean that they should be treated as anything less than human.

...

When you have any sort of actual argument which you are willing to also present in the form of one, get back to me.

[Mavorpen]

1) Not in the exact same amount or rate..

Are you kidding me? If you're worried about the rate/amount, then why are you grouping sperm and ovum? You DO know how many sperm are released upon ejaculation, right?

[The ivain isles]

Really? I have to give notice for an eviction, even then, during that time, my convenience supercedes their right to that notice? And yes, a woman's right to life does supersede a foetuses right to life, but her choice to terminate it doesn't.

her right to her body supersedes the fetuses, just as a conjoined twins does.

Nope, her body is there before the pregnancy is there afterwards, I've never seen a woman disappear after labour, and before your reel into me, I'm only saying that because I hate sound bites. What your saying effectively is that we should end a life if it makes somebody uncomfortable, I agree that if a pregnancy imposes a direct threat to the mothers life, the pregnancy should be ended, but I don't think a woman should be allowed to terminate a child after an iq test, or based on eye colour or hair colour, and justify that by saying its her body, when it is effectively, her child's hair, her child's eyes, and her child's IQ. Also, in any moral issue, rights will invariably come into conflict somehow, it's why we balance the rights of the tenant with those of the landlord which come into question, it's the landlords property, yet that doesn't nullify the rights of the tenant.

[Mavorpen]

What your saying effectively is that we should end a life if it makes somebody uncomfortable

No, he's saying that they CAN, not that they should.

[The ivain isles]

What your saying effectively is that we should end a life if it makes somebody uncomfortable

No, he's saying that they CAN, not that they should.

I'll concede that one, my bad for misspeaking.

[Blakk Metal]

...

When you have any sort of actual argument which you are willing to also present in the form of one, get back to me.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

[Sociobiology]

actually they are removed in the exact same fashion



If you wanted something besides cloning I have no idea what it is.



but they can't without conflicting with the rights of the mother.
It is not that fetuses do not have rights , it is their rights lose when in direct conflict with the rights of an adult.
That is literally why babies cannot be terminated under normal circumstances, because their rights are no longer in direct conflict with an adults.


yes and?

1) Not in the exact same amount or rate.

so whats the cut off point?
And please justify this point.

2) As in you can take a cell from stomach lining and clone the entire human that way. I might have lived under a rock in this case, but the last time i checked that wasn't possible.

see Dolly.
it is not technologically feasible right now, but that might change any day now.
It is very possible.

3) And that is what i am arguing about. That the mother should not get any more rights regarding the matter than the fetus unless it poses a medical risk for the mother.

why, why does the child have a greater right to her body than she does?

Also all pregnancies poses medical risks.

3b) As in just because not all fetuses grow up to become human doesn't mean that they should be treated as anything less than human.

they are treated as human, they are not treated as full persons, they are not treated as fully independent adults with the full rights thereof.
This is exactly the reason I keep bringing up the conjoined twins.

[Solarys]

When you have any sort of actual argument which you are willing to also present in the form of one, get back to me.

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

Linking to some random site with no explanation of what or why and without any input from your part is no more argument than me replying with a link to google search.

[Sociobiology]

her right to her body supersedes the fetuses, just as a conjoined twins does.

Nope, her body is there before the pregnancy is there afterwards, I've never seen a woman disappear after labour, and before your reel into me, I'm only saying that because I hate sound bites. What your saying effectively is that we should end a life if it makes somebody uncomfortable,

Ok so If I abduct you in the night and stitch you to a person in a vegetative state in such a way that your separation will kill one of you, you should be forced to spend the rest of your life attached to said vegetable.

Or better yet I could just cut out a few of your organs against your sill to implant into those needing replacement organs.

I agree that if a pregnancy imposes a direct threat to the mothers life, the pregnancy should be ended, but I don't think a woman should be allowed to terminate a child after an iq test, or based on eye colour or hair colour, and justify that by saying its her body, when it is effectively, her child's hair, her child's eyes, and her child's IQ. Also, in any moral issue, rights will invariably come into conflict somehow, it's why we balance the rights of the tenant with those of the landlord which come into question, it's the landlords property, yet that doesn't nullify the rights of the tenant.

actually it does nullify their right to occupy it.
this is why I cant just show up at your house, that you are living in, and start living there against your will, you can have me forcibly removed.

either the woman is strapped down to a table for 9 months, greatly violating her rights, or the offending fetus is removed, which is roughly equivalent to shooting a rat.

[Solarys]

1) Not in the exact same amount or rate.

so whats the cut off point?
And please justify this point.

2) As in you can take a cell from stomach lining and clone the entire human that way. I might have lived under a rock in this case, but the last time i checked that wasn't possible.

see Dolly.
it is not technologically feasible right now, but that might change any day now.
It is very possible.

3) And that is what i am arguing about. That the mother should not get any more rights regarding the matter than the fetus unless it poses a medical risk for the mother.

why, why does the child have a greater right to her body than she does?

Also all pregnancies poses medical risks.

3b) As in just because not all fetuses grow up to become human doesn't mean that they should be treated as anything less than human.

they are treated as human, they are not treated as full persons, they are not treated as fully independent adults with the full rights thereof.
This is exactly the reason I keep bringing up the conjoined twins.

1) More like i can equate a zygote to a fetus but not a sperm or ovum due to their similarities differences.

2) Yes, that is what i was talking about. It requires the egg cell doesn't it ? which unless i am mistaken is not just cells from stomach lining.

3) And that is what i am saying is wrong.

Also conjoined twins are different and also the situation is permanent unless surgically separated. And do note that i am pro-abortion if pregnancy carries a serious health risk for the mother or something.

[Solarys]

either the woman is strapped down to a table for 9 months, greatly violating her rights, or the offending fetus is removed, which is roughly equivalent to shooting a rat.

That to some is equivalent to shooting a human being. So yeah, i'd rather have her strapped down to a table.

[Mavorpen]

either the woman is strapped down to a table for 9 months, greatly violating her rights, or the offending fetus is removed, which is roughly equivalent to shooting a rat.

That to some is equivalent to shooting a human being. So yeah, i'd rather have her strapped down to a table.

It's always nice to see people admit they view women as human incubation machines.

[The ivain isles]

Nope, her body is there before the pregnancy is there afterwards, I've never seen a woman disappear after labour, and before your reel into me, I'm only saying that because I hate sound bites. What your saying effectively is that we should end a life if it makes somebody uncomfortable,

Ok so If I abduct you in the night and stitch you to a person in a vegetative state in such a way that your separation will kill one of you, you should be forced to spend the rest of your life attached to said vegetable.

I agree that if a pregnancy imposes a direct threat to the mothers life, the pregnancy should be ended, but I don't think a woman should be allowed to terminate a child after an iq test, or based on eye colour or hair colour, and justify that by saying its her body, when it is effectively, her child's hair, her child's eyes, and her child's IQ. Also, in any moral issue, rights will invariably come into conflict somehow, it's why we balance the rights of the tenant with those of the landlord which come into question, it's the landlords property, yet that doesn't nullify the rights of the tenant.

actually it does nullify their right to occupy it.
this is why I cant just show up at your house, that you are living in, and start living there against your will, you can have me forcibly removed.

either the woman is strapped down to a table for 9 months, greatly violating her rights, or the offending fetus is removed, which is roughly equivalent to shooting a rat.

Are you suggesting a woman who gets pregnant is going to spend the rest of her life pregnant?

Maybe back in the 1800s, but we've had a few land reform acts since then, and are you suggesting that women just magically get pregnant out of the blue?

Since when have pregnant women been strapped down on tables for nine months? I seriously missed a memo on that one, and since when did rats develop into adult humans??????? Now, that stuffs seriously scary.

[Sociobiology]

so whats the cut off point?
And please justify this point.



see Dolly.
it is not technologically feasible right now, but that might change any day now.
It is very possible.


why, why does the child have a greater right to her body than she does?

Also all pregnancies poses medical risks.




they are treated as human, they are not treated as full persons, they are not treated as fully independent adults with the full rights thereof.
This is exactly the reason I keep bringing up the conjoined twins.

1) More like i can equate a zygote to a fetus but not a sperm or ovum due to their similarities differences.

such as?

2) Yes, that is what i was talking about. It requires the egg cell doesn't it ? which unless i am mistaken is not just cells from stomach lining.

actually we can make egg cells (ova) from stomach lining cells.

3) And that is what i am saying is wrong.

so we should cut your donatable organs out against your will to help other people?

Also conjoined twins are different and also the situation is permanent unless surgically separated.

what does that have to do with it?
in both cases it is unwilling.
in both cases a dependent and a independent human are in conflict over the use of a organs.

And do note that i am pro-abortion if pregnancy carries a serious health risk for the mother or something.

[/quote]
I am pro abortion up until the delivery, and pro termination if the human is in a dependent state that if terminated will drastically improve the standard of living of the independent human.