NationStates

La xinga wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Not all change is good. Not all change is useful."

This is referring to good, sir.

"There is no evidence that a braindead person will affect another's life positively. Nor either a fetus. The advantage to ready access to abortion is that individuals can best evaluate for themselves whether the effect will be positive."

La xinga wrote:

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:"If they can not live without it nor preform basic bodily functions? Yes."

AMBASSADOR, that person could change someone's life. Yet, assume he/she's as good as dead?

"You completely misinterpreted my words, Ambassador. Still, my point still stands."

La xinga wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Not all change is good. Not all change is useful."

This is referring to good, sir.

Godular wrote:
"Technically, *I'M* confined to a machine. The important distinction here is whether the hypothetical individual you speak of retains their cognitive capacity. That distinction tends to be a major deciding factor in determining life or death, as we do employ the concept of brain-death in medical terminology on a routine basis."

The guy's not brain dead, sir.

"You failed to specify. As it stands, your intended comparison fails due to the fact that under common medical definitions, the fetuses involved in an abortion are for all functional intents and purposes devoid of cognitive capacity. They lack the capacity to reason, and are even incapable of feeling pain. Attempting to base your argument on the potentiality of the fetus leads to a wide variety of inherent pitfalls, and the question about life-support has little relevance to your previously stated argument."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

La xinga wrote:This is referring to good, sir.

"There is no evidence that a braindead person will affect another's life positively. Nor either a fetus. The advantage to ready access to abortion is that individuals can best evaluate for themselves whether the effect will be positive."

People usually make someone happy at one point in their life.

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:

La xinga wrote:AMBASSADOR, that person could change someone's life. Yet, assume he/she's as good as dead?

"You completely misinterpreted my words, Ambassador. Still, my point still stands."

Tell me sir, what have I misintepated?

Godular wrote:

La xinga wrote:This is referring to good, sir.

The guy's not brain dead, sir.

"You failed to specify. As it stands, your intended comparison fails due to the fact that under common medical definitions, the fetuses involved in an abortion are for all functional intents and purposes devoid of cognitive capacity. They lack the capacity to reason, and are even incapable of feeling pain. Attempting to base your argument on the potentiality of the fetus leads to a wide variety of inherent pitfalls, and the question about life-support has little relevance to your previously stated argument."

I think WA law legalizes abortion even if nothing's wrong with the baby.

La xinga wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"There is no evidence that a braindead person will affect another's life positively. Nor either a fetus. The advantage to ready access to abortion is that individuals can best evaluate for themselves whether the effect will be positive."

People usually make someone happy at one point in their life.

"Maybe. People also usually make somebody upset as well. The argument that a fetus is positive on one's life completely ignores the opposite side of the coin. Realistically, there is as much risk for harm as there is potential for good. It zeros out. As such, it is an unconvincing argument."

I think WA law legalizes abortion even if nothing's wrong with the baby.

"It does."

La xinga wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"There is no evidence that a braindead person will affect another's life positively. Nor either a fetus. The advantage to ready access to abortion is that individuals can best evaluate for themselves whether the effect will be positive."

People usually make someone happy at one point in their life.

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:"You completely misinterpreted my words, Ambassador. Still, my point still stands."

Tell me sir, what have I misintepated?

Godular wrote:
"You failed to specify. As it stands, your intended comparison fails due to the fact that under common medical definitions, the fetuses involved in an abortion are for all functional intents and purposes devoid of cognitive capacity. They lack the capacity to reason, and are even incapable of feeling pain. Attempting to base your argument on the potentiality of the fetus leads to a wide variety of inherent pitfalls, and the question about life-support has little relevance to your previously stated argument."

I think WA law legalizes abortion even if nothing's wrong with the baby.

"It does not matter whether there is anything wrong with the fetus, only that there is something wrong with the pregnancy. The primary issue here is that you're attempting to claim that a fetus is identical in properties to a born person on life-support, which is a flawed argument on its own but also happens to be irrelevant to the angle of argumentation you have been pursuing."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

La xinga wrote:People usually make someone happy at one point in their life.

"Maybe. People also usually make somebody upset as well. The argument that a fetus is positive on one's life completely ignores the opposite side of the coin. Realistically, there is as much risk for harm as there is potential for good. It zeros out. As such, it is an unconvincing argument."

I think WA law legalizes abortion even if nothing's wrong with the baby.

"It does."

1. I think the former more.
2. Exactly.

Godular wrote:

La xinga wrote:People usually make someone happy at one point in their life.

Tell me sir, what have I misintepated?

I think WA law legalizes abortion even if nothing's wrong with the baby.

"It does not matter whether there is anything wrong with the fetus, only that there is something wrong with the pregnancy. The primary issue here is that you're attempting to claim that a fetus is identical in properties to a born person on life-support, which is a flawed argument on its own but also happens to be irrelevant to the angle of argumentation you have been pursuing."

"Angle of argumentation?" Have I been living in a closed world or something?

La xinga wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Maybe. People also usually make somebody upset as well. The argument that a fetus is positive on one's life completely ignores the opposite side of the coin. Realistically, there is as much risk for harm as there is potential for good. It zeros out. As such, it is an unconvincing argument."


"It does."

1. I think the former more.
2. Exactly.

Godular wrote:
"It does not matter whether there is anything wrong with the fetus, only that there is something wrong with the pregnancy. The primary issue here is that you're attempting to claim that a fetus is identical in properties to a born person on life-support, which is a flawed argument on its own but also happens to be irrelevant to the angle of argumentation you have been pursuing."

"Angle of argumentation?" Have I been living in a closed world or something?

"Signs point to yes."

La xinga wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Maybe. People also usually make somebody upset as well. The argument that a fetus is positive on one's life completely ignores the opposite side of the coin. Realistically, there is as much risk for harm as there is potential for good. It zeros out. As such, it is an unconvincing argument."


"It does."

1. I think the former more.

"This is an assertion without either rhetorical support or evidence."

La xinga wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:
"There is no evidence that a braindead person will affect another's life positively. Nor either a fetus. The advantage to ready access to abortion is that individuals can best evaluate for themselves whether the effect will be positive."

People usually make someone happy at one point in their life.

OOC: I hate saying this, but my uncle didn't do shit when he was braindead.

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:"You completely misinterpreted my words, Ambassador. Still, my point still stands."

Tell me sir, what have I misintepated?

"It's impossible for someone who is braindead to change someone's life. I talk from exprerience."

Godular wrote:
"You failed to specify. As it stands, your intended comparison fails due to the fact that under common medical definitions, the fetuses involved in an abortion are for all functional intents and purposes devoid of cognitive capacity. They lack the capacity to reason, and are even incapable of feeling pain. Attempting to base your argument on the potentiality of the fetus leads to a wide variety of inherent pitfalls, and the question about life-support has little relevance to your previously stated argument."

I think WA law legalizes abortion even if nothing's wrong with the baby.

It does.

Kaystein wrote:This is one reason why people say NS has a left-bent

Agreed.

IC: “Foril fully supports this resolution and intend to vote yes upon the beginning of the voting period.”

Theberstan wrote:

Kaystein wrote:This is one reason why people say NS has a left-bent

Agreed.

It's pointless quoting a post from 3 months ago when this has gone through numerous different drafts in the interim.

Godular wrote:

La xinga wrote:1. I think the former more.
2. Exactly.

"Angle of argumentation?" Have I been living in a closed world or something?

"Signs point to yes."

What?!

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:

La xinga wrote:People usually make someone happy at one point in their life.

OOC: I hate saying this, but my uncle didn't do shit when he was braindead.

Tell me sir, what have I misintepated?

"It's impossible for someone who is braindead to change someone's life. I talk from exprerience."

I think WA law legalizes abortion even if nothing's wrong with the baby.

It does.

Of course, but why should abortion be allowed if there's absolutely nothing wrong?

Separatist Peoples wrote:

La xinga wrote:1. I think the former more.

"This is an assertion without either rhetorical support or evidence."

It's obvious.

The New California Republic wrote:

Theberstan wrote:Agreed.

It's pointless quoting a post from 3 months ago when this has gone through numerous different drafts in the interim.

I might note that it still possesses a counter-clockwise torque even after the passage of three months.

La xinga wrote:

Godular wrote:
"Signs point to yes."

What?!

"You asked if you have been living in a closed world. My assessment is that you have indeed been doing that."

La xinga wrote:It's obvious.

"Then you will have no problem offering rhetorical or evidentiary support."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

La xinga wrote:It's obvious.

"Then you will have no problem offering rhetorical or evidentiary support."

"Or do they mean the fact that their argument lacks such things is an obvious observation?"

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:

La xinga wrote:People usually make someone happy at one point in their life.

OOC: I hate saying this, but my uncle didn't do shit when he was braindead.

Tell me sir, what have I misintepated?

"It's impossible for someone who is braindead to change someone's life. I talk from exprerience."

I think WA law legalizes abortion even if nothing's wrong with the baby.

It does.

Of course, but why should abortion be allowed if there's absolutely nothing wrong?
[/quote]
Bodily sovereignty of women and basic civil rights.

Godular wrote:

La xinga wrote:What?!

"You asked if you have been living in a closed world. My assessment is that you have indeed been doing that."

If you say so.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

La xinga wrote:It's obvious.

"Then you will have no problem offering rhetorical or evidentiary support."

People don't make evidence off of obvious stuff.

And links are only as helpful as the people who wrote them .

Godular wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Then you will have no problem offering rhetorical or evidentiary support."

"Or do they mean the fact that their argument lacks such things is an obvious observation?"

"Perhaps. Were it obvious, though, it would not be in dispute."

La xinga wrote:People don't make evidence off of obvious stuff.

And links are only as helpful as the people who wrote them .

"People do not need to make evidence of the obvious because the evidence is readily at hand. If you do not have it at hand and cannot find any such evidence, I can only conclude that you cannot provide evidence, and therefore cannot overcome your burden of proof."

La xinga wrote:

Godular wrote:
"You asked if you have been living in a closed world. My assessment is that you have indeed been doing that."

If you say so.

"If you did not wish to hear the answer, why would you ask the question?"

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:
OOC: I hate saying this, but my uncle didn't do shit when he was braindead.


"It's impossible for someone who is braindead to change someone's life. I talk from exprerience."



It does.

Of course, but why should abortion be allowed if there's absolutely nothing wrong?

Bodily sovereignty of women and basic civil rights.[/quote]
"The right to murder"

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Godular wrote:
"Or do they mean the fact that their argument lacks such things is an obvious observation?"

"Perhaps. Were it obvious, though, it would not be in dispute."

La xinga wrote:People don't make evidence off of obvious stuff.

And links are only as helpful as the people who wrote them .

"People do not need to make evidence of the obvious because the evidence is readily at hand. If you do not have it at hand and cannot find any such evidence, I can only conclude that you cannot provide evidence, and therefore cannot overcome your burden of proof."

Exactly. I think you just proved my point.

Godular wrote:

La xinga wrote:If you say so.

"If you did not wish to hear the answer, why would you ask the question?"

I said if you say so. There's no "iF yOu dId NoT wIsH tO" there's nothing in there.

"If you think freedom from slavery = right to murder then there is no hope for you whatsoever Mr.."

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:"If you think freedom from slavery = right to murder then there is no hope for you whatsoever Mr.."

Where did you get freedom from slavery = right to murder from my posts? That's called making stuff up.