NationStates

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:42 pm**

Blasveck wrote:
ALMF wrote:Not at all: let me make the metofor an explicit simaly.
DNA (as opposed to phisicle independents) is to an indivigule (and thereby person/intrist)
as Juw (as opposed to serial child killer) is to habitually kills children (and thereby deserves to die).

Do I really need to make my metifors this transparent or can we expect a 5th grade reading levle?

>5th grade reading level
>Can't even spell

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:42 pm**

The Norgan Alliance wrote:
Solarys wrote:
The fetus of a human is human. And it is a person just without official personhood or whatever.

If it's DNA is human then it is a human no if, ands, or buts.

So my appendix is a human: it is a human appendix BTW? :blink:

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:43 pm**

New Libertarian States wrote:
Solarys wrote:
The fetus of a human is human. And it is a person just without official personhood or whatever.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fetus
Nope
It can turn into a human, but, for the biological definition, it's not.
It looks and sounds like a duck, but it isn't a duck.

Yet, it will always grow into a human. You may wish for a dog or a cat, but no. You will get a human. Not a frigging antelope.
Hence it is human just like how the fetus of a cat will be a cat.

Sociobiology wrote:actually most fetuses never develop, so statistically they are unlikely to make it to that point.
And no they can't be legally murdered, they can be legally prevented from maturing just as you prevent dozens of people from being born every time you refuse to have sex.
Should we force you to become a brood mare for humans to keep you from "murdering" thousands of unborn children by refusing sex?
should condoms be illegal because they also prevent humans from being born?

to me personally, a rat has as much worth a human fetus. with its potential providing just enough compensation to make up for its lack of a mind and lack of an independent nature.

1) I am talking about the ones that do develop can can become a normal baby if allowed to.

2) If you bring legality into the equation, well, nazi/hitler's view on jews. Or how about the crusades. Legality of the term doesn't change the action caused.

3) Maybe to you. To me humans who consider a fetus to be something like that are worth less than a rat.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:43 pm**

I think it is ironic to be either pro-choice and against capital punishment or pro-life and for capital punishment.

It really isn't. I am Pro-Abortion (with regulations of course) and Anti Capital Punishment.
Altough i think that abortion shouldn't be seen as a contraceptive, but as a serious, very serious, thing.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:43 pm**

Blasveck wrote:
The ivain isles wrote:
You forgot the first rule of NS. Only liberals can get away with being snide.

You forgot the second rule of NS.

Don't make stupid assumptions.

Like that a foetus of a giraffe is the same as a foetus from a human?

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:43 pm**

The Norgan Alliance wrote:
New Libertarian States wrote:http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Fetus
Nope
It can turn into a human, but, for the biological definition, it's not.
It looks and sounds like a duck, but it isn't a duck.

And if it weighs the same as a duck, then it's a witch!

Following your logic children aren't humans because the biological definition doesn't match! The biological definitions do not have to match because it's merely a classification of the early stages of life for a human.

Actually, my definitions comply with being able to do so.
A baby can:
Solve Problems, is sapient, can perform abstract reasoning, etc.
A fetus cannot, and shows no possibility of being able to do so.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:44 pm**

The Norgan Alliance wrote:
Sociobiology wrote:if you can find a consistent and rational definition of person that somehow excludes Jews

Can you find a consistent and rational definition of a person that somehow excludes fetuses?

A full person is a sentient, sapient, mentally developed* Homo sapien**

*capable of abstract formal operations

** may change when if we discover other technological civilizations.

ANd you might notice my selection is the only creature with full rights in our society, also the only group capable of giving informed consent.

Edit, personhood has a gradient and a plateau, a fetus is nowhere near the plateau, the fall somewhere between rat and cocker spaniel, that is we must give a reason to terminate them, but that reason can be because I am not taking care of it, or it will improve my quality of life.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:44 pm**

The ivain isles wrote:
Blasveck wrote:
You forgot the second rule of NS.

Don't make stupid assumptions.

Like that a foetus of a giraffe is the same as a foetus from a human?

What?

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:45 pm**

Blasveck wrote:
The ivain isles wrote:
Like that a foetus of a giraffe is the same as a foetus from a human?

What?

See what I mean.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:45 pm**

The ivain isles wrote:
Blasveck wrote:
What?

See what I mean.

Make your point.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:46 pm**

New Libertarian States wrote:Actually, my definitions comply with being able to do so.
A baby can:
Solve Problems, is sapient, can perform abstract reasoning, etc.
A fetus cannot, and shows no possibility of being able to do so.

And where do babies come from ? It is one of the stages of life.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:46 pm**

Blasveck wrote:
The ivain isles wrote:
See what I mean.

Make your point.

As in the fetus of a human can be only human ?

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:47 pm**

ALMF wrote:
The Norgan Alliance wrote:Can you find a consistent and rational definition of a person that somehow excludes fetuses?

All of the consistent and rational definitions do: a priory.

You're dodging the question.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:47 pm**

Mavorpen wrote:
The ivain isles wrote:So those with intellectual disabilities aren't people, and shouldn't be afforded protections under law?

I have no idea where the fuck you're getting that from.

You said
A person is an individual that is ascribed certain rights and obligations based off of their capacity to comprehend and act upon them.

An intellectually disabled person could be unable to comprehend Miranda rights, is he still allowed them. Under your definition, no.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:47 pm**

Solarys wrote:
New Libertarian States wrote:Actually, my definitions comply with being able to do so.
A baby can:
Solve Problems, is sapient, can perform abstract reasoning, etc.
A fetus cannot, and shows no possibility of being able to do so.

And where do babies come from ? It is one of the stages of life.

A mother?
Which doesn't make it human, it has the POTENTIAL to turn into a person.
The other option, of course, is that it dies/aborted.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:49 pm**

The ivain isles wrote:An intellectually disabled person could be unable to comprehend Miranda rights, is he still allowed them. Under your definition, no.

What bullshit is this?

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:49 pm**

The ivain isles wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:I have no idea where the fuck you're getting that from.

You said
A person is an individual that is ascribed certain rights and obligations based off of their capacity to comprehend and act upon them.

An intellectually disabled person could be unable to comprehend Miranda rights, is he still allowed them. Under your definition, no.

actually they are assigned an advocate, as Miranda rights are for interrogation.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:49 pm**

Solarys wrote:
Blasveck wrote:
Make your point.

As in the fetus of a human can be only human ?

It has the potential to be human.

But it isn't until it can survive outside the mother's womb.

Or how about this?

Answer my question, if you would:

What, in your opinion, makes the fetus a human being?

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:51 pm**

Solarys wrote:
New Libertarian States wrote:Actually, my definitions comply with being able to do so.
A baby can:
Solve Problems, is sapient, can perform abstract reasoning, etc.
A fetus cannot, and shows no possibility of being able to do so.

And where do babies come from ? It is one of the stages of life.

A featous when born becomes a baby (and thereby a human/a individual/et al.) as braking and cooking makes an egg into a omlit.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:53 pm**

Mavorpen wrote:
The ivain isles wrote:An intellectually disabled person could be unable to comprehend Miranda rights, is he still allowed them. Under your definition, no.

What bullshit is this?

Again,
A person is an individual that is ascribed certain rights and obligations based off of their capacity to comprehend and act upon them.
The intellectually disabled, may, depending on their level of disability, may not have the capacity to comprehend or act on them, should they therefore not possess their Miranda rights, due to your definition of person?

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:54 pm**

The Norgan Alliance wrote:
ALMF wrote:All of the consistent and rational definitions do: a priory.

You're dodging the question.

Let's try it leaglise "Question assumes facts not in evadance." (and false for that matter). There is no consent to have a compasit for.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:54 pm**

Hypocrites...

Texas-Abortion bill to save lives....kills a ton of folks with old SQUIRTY...

Even people like Bill O Riley dont like the death penalty...I dont like because it's not cost effective and sometimes the wrong people are killed for a crime they didn't commit.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:55 pm**

Sociobiology wrote:
The ivain isles wrote:
You said
A person is an individual that is ascribed certain rights and obligations based off of their capacity to comprehend and act upon them.

An intellectually disabled person could be unable to comprehend Miranda rights, is he still allowed them. Under your definition, no.

actually they are assigned an advocate, as Miranda rights are for interrogation.

Yet the rights are still afforded to them, as those who are unable to protect themselves, are afforded special privileges based on that fact.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:55 pm**

The ivain isles wrote:The intellectually disabled, may, depending on their level of disability, may not have the capacity to comprehend or act on them, should they therefore not possess their Miranda rights, due to your definition of person?

Yes.

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:55 pm**

New Libertarian States wrote:
Solarys wrote:
And where do babies come from ? It is one of the stages of life.

A mother?
Which doesn't make it human, it has the POTENTIAL to turn into a person.
The other option, of course, is that it dies/aborted.

1) Not without a fetus forming first inside the said mother.

2) It doesn't make it anything other than human if it is a human fetus. They do not become antelopes.

3) Which is basically the same as killing a human being as you are killing something that can fully form into a adult human. It is no different from killing babies. Sure you can argue the sentience/sapience part, but just that doesn't make something human (A.I for eg) and not having that doesn't make its life any less important either, especially if it can grow up to be an actual human being with those qualities.

NationStates

Abortion and Capital Punishment