NationStates

Rhodmhire wrote:

WWII History Geeks wrote: I'd like to see an eagle surf the web.

Wish granted.

Smartass.

WWII History Geeks wrote:

Rhodmhire wrote:

WWII History Geeks wrote: I'd like to see an eagle surf the web.

Wish granted.

I belong on Forum 7, who can blame me?

Oh come on, you know you thought it was hilarious.

If it was Maurepas or Sibirsky or Buffett and Colbert or Hydesland or someone like that they'd be laughing or making a joke to combat my smartass move.

La Dame Sans Merci wrote:Smartass.

I took a risk, and lost. Ah well, moving on.

Quotation Marks wrote:Regardless, would it be okay for me to be murdered now if I had not been convicted of a crime? I think we'll all agree no. So would it have been perfectly fine to have killed me then?

You weren't alive you were nothing but a fetus

Hiddenrun wrote:

Muravyets wrote:I just enjoy the way some people seem to think that if they make the whole issue personal and extremely emotional it will...what? Make people feel awkward about debating it? They don't know us very well, do they?

Since (A) there is no way to know if the OP is lying or telling the truth and (B) it doesn't matter anyway because anecdotal arguments do not win debates, I dismiss the entire OP as being based on an appeal to emotion fallacy.

Oh look at me! I am going to spot the fallacy and win the game! Do I get a lollipop? Gosh I'm so smart.

Your bridge is missing you.

Hiddenrun wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
That, my friend, is called a strawman.

It fits what you said pretty well. But don't worry, I don't expect you to admit it.

I didn't say it was okay to kill humans.

WWII History Geeks wrote:And really people, why aren't they considered people? And why do we protect Eagle eggs better than HUMANS?

There are more humans than eagles. You saying the eagles don't have the same rights to life as humans?

Muravyets wrote:

WWII History Geeks wrote:

Iceland-Thule wrote:Good thing your mother didn't have an abortion. It should only be allowed if the mothers life is in danger.

Thank you. That's the right thing to do. Anyways, I feel sorry for you Quotation Marks. I know you're not trying to have a pity party or anything, but life must've been tough.

And really people, why aren't they considered people? And why do we protect Eagle eggs better than HUMANS?

Because there are fewer of them. The world needs more eagles a shitload more than it needs more people.

But according to you, the eagles arnt alive until they are born!
Btw, the eagle is not endangered anymore even tho it is still protected.
You guys do realize that none of us would be alive today had our mothers had an abortion! Its like you guys are fighting against your own kind, youll protect a lifeless clump of cells inside a bird egg before you protect a baby inside a mothers womb!
(I use the term lifeless clump of cells because isnt that what you pro choicers see it as?)

I think that a fetus becomes a human being when there is brain activity, so I don't believe that abortion is a bad thing until that developtment occurs. The brain and other vital organs don't begin to form until three weeks after conception, and don't function until the fourth. After that I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but there isn't a fix-all solution. Every pregnancy is different.

Quotation Marks wrote:Regardless, would it be okay for me to be murdered now if I had not been convicted of a crime? I think we'll all agree no. So would it have been perfectly fine to have killed me then?

Yes. Because you are a living human being now. You were not then.

Quotation Marks wrote:Regardless, would it be okay for me to be murdered now if I had not been convicted of a crime? I think we'll all agree no. So would it have been perfectly fine to have killed me then?

well its certainly better to stop you before you do...unless by successful you mean a banker of course

You would have been born elsewhere if she got an abortion.

There's also the fact that fetuses are NOT babies, no matter how much the republican party claims it is. Similarly, abortion is not murder no matter how much the republicans falsely claim it is.

Muravyets wrote:Your bridge is missing you.

Ho ho ho! I'm going to barge into threads, score my magical "fallacy" points, call people trolls and win some prizes, and then chortle about how I'm so far above these silly threads. So far above them that I can't stop myself from posting in them, because I honestly have nothing better to do with my time! It helps fill the gaping void.

CIB EMPIRE wrote:

Muravyets wrote:

WWII History Geeks wrote:

Iceland-Thule wrote:Good thing your mother didn't have an abortion. It should only be allowed if the mothers life is in danger.

Thank you. That's the right thing to do. Anyways, I feel sorry for you Quotation Marks. I know you're not trying to have a pity party or anything, but life must've been tough.

And really people, why aren't they considered people? And why do we protect Eagle eggs better than HUMANS?

Because there are fewer of them. The world needs more eagles a shitload more than it needs more people.

But according to you, the eagles arnt alive until they are born!
Btw, the eagle is not endangered anymore even tho it is still protected.
You guys do realize that none of us would be alive today had our mothers had an abortion! Its like you guys are fighting against your own kind, youll protect a lifeless clump of cells inside a bird egg before you protect a baby inside a mothers womb!
(I use the term lifeless clump of cells because isnt that what you pro choicers see it as?)

If my mother had aborted me, I would never know how much I wouldn't miss you.

No offense to you or anything, but in this society, sadly enough, as a person under the age of 18, you have little rights in the first place, especially if adults are involved, or are making the decisions. Also no offense to adults, but this is what the majority of "adults" does. -_-

Also, I say its the woman's decision. No where in that statement did I question your right to life, whether or not you were a person, or say that you had no say in it (which, well, as a fetus, you can't very well speak up and tell them you would like to live or die, now can you? xP ). I just said that I believe its the mother's decision whether or not she should let HER CHILD live. I personally believe she should not abort, but then again, I'm not the mother, who is making the decision.

Araraukar wrote:

Quotation Marks wrote:Why can people abort at all? It's murder! Like I said, these are PEOPLE.

I'm starting to think your mother should have had an abortion... but think about it this way; what if she'd been raped by her daddy or brother? What if you'd been born with severe neural disorder because of that, and would have made her life a hell before dying off of "unspecified causes", in other words, being held a pillow over your face until you snuffed.

Yes, I'm pro-choice, but I would not force anyone to abort any more than I would force anyone throw their baby out of the window.

You bastard! Do you know what you're saying?! That's so low I'm getting sick. Do you people even value the human life? Go to f***ing war or see someone close to you die and think about it, kiddies. Life is a valuable and precious thing. View it as such or someday you might lose it when you don't want to.

CIB EMPIRE wrote:

Muravyets wrote:

WWII History Geeks wrote:

Iceland-Thule wrote:Good thing your mother didn't have an abortion. It should only be allowed if the mothers life is in danger.

Thank you. That's the right thing to do. Anyways, I feel sorry for you Quotation Marks. I know you're not trying to have a pity party or anything, but life must've been tough.

And really people, why aren't they considered people? And why do we protect Eagle eggs better than HUMANS?

Because there are fewer of them. The world needs more eagles a shitload more than it needs more people.

But according to you, the eagles arnt alive until they are born!
Btw, the eagle is not endangered anymore even tho it is still protected.
You guys do realize that none of us would be alive today had our mothers had an abortion! Its like you guys are fighting against your own kind, youll protect a lifeless clump of cells inside a bird egg before you protect a baby inside a mothers womb!
(I use the term lifeless clump of cells because isnt that what you pro choicers see it as?)

Cause eagles are our national symbol and when did eagles become part of the debate

Grave_n_idle wrote:
I didn't say it was okay to kill humans.

I know, I know, you get around that by defining unborn children as non-human. It's okay. I dehumanized the people I had to kill too. I understand the process well. You have to believe it, or you couldn't live with yourself.

Hiddenrun wrote:

Muravyets wrote:Your bridge is missing you.

Ho ho ho! I'm going to barge into threads, score my magical "fallacy" points, call people trolls and win some prizes, and then chortle about how I'm so far above these silly threads. So far above them that I can't stop myself from posting in them, because I honestly have nothing better to do with my time! It helps fill the gaping void.

You know, technically, you are violating the forum rule against griefing. I'll solve the problem by putting you on ignore. 'Bye.

Up until the moment you became a viable living entity, you had no rights. If you had been aborted before you became viable, it wouldn't concern you overmuch.

Next question?

Kamsaki wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:What are you complaining about?

There are no 'rights' except as societal constructs.

There is no intrinsic right to life.

Well... There's certainly no imperative to act on the theories of right that are not socially conventional, but that's not to say there is no non-social right. Going back to ye old Hegel, a right is when reality reflect's an individual's will to affect itself, and correspondingly, the right to life is one of those that are present both in society and in the state of nature.

Sure, there's nothing to stop people killing you, but they would have to use violent intervention in doing so, which doesn't actually deny that you had the right; merely that it is being respected.

If a right is when reality reflects an individual's will to affect itself, than an embryo has no rights. Indeed, we can detect coherent neural patterns at 22 weeks, but I'm not sure WHEN you can reliably claim individual will - you might actually be making an argument that means even (born) babies have no 'right to life'.

There is no 'right to life' inherent in nature. You're alive, or you're not. 'Rights' don't even have any meaning outside of the context of a society.

Iceland-Thule wrote:So its ok to kill unborn babies cause we aren't endangered?

1. They aren't babies until they're born.

2. If people would get spayed and neutered in their teenage years (like we do to pet cats and dogs), we wouldn't have the overcrowding problem.

3. Wanna volunteer?

4. No, I'm not a VHEMtian, though they have some good ideas.

Hiddenrun wrote:Ho ho ho! I'm going to barge into threads, score my magical "fallacy" points, call people trolls and win some prizes, and then chortle about how I'm so far above these silly threads. So far above them that I can't stop myself from posting in them, because I honestly have nothing better to do with my time! It helps fill the gaping void.

Which begs the question then... can the same not apply to you?

Hydesland wrote:
Which begs the question then... can the same not apply to you?

I'm not here nearly as much as Murvyeti. Nor do I run around calling people trolls, or gleefully going "omg fallacy I win!"

Quotation Marks wrote:Regardless, would it be okay for me to be murdered now if I had not been convicted of a crime? I think we'll all agree no. So would it have been perfectly fine to have killed me then?

The thing about counterfactuals is that we have to try to discard a lot of actual truth in order to consider them. For instance, in the world in which you'd been killed then, you wouldn't have gone on to become the human being that you are now. This means that we can ignore anything that occurred between then and now in considering whether you could have been justifiably killed then.

As it turns out, I think that yeah, it would, if it was her decision. What's more, I don't think you can extrapolate your own case as a universal - there is a difference between a mother choosing to keep a child as a result of rape and a mother being obliged to keep that child.

Surote wrote:

Quotation Marks wrote:Regardless, would it be okay for me to be murdered now if I had not been convicted of a crime? I think we'll all agree no. So would it have been perfectly fine to have killed me then?

You weren't alive you were nothing but a fetus

She (or he) had a heartbeat at 8 weeks. Specialized cells and a shape at 4. At 12, you can tell it's a human. At 20, the nervous system works.I think that constitutes ALIVE.