Kansas to enact "Life starts at fertilization" abortion law

[Alowwvia]

If human rights apply to a blastocyst, they also apply to lung cancer. STOP THE MURDER! END MEDICINE NOW!

Nice, strawman.

Try again.

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT

THEREFORE IT IS A FALLACY

[Zweite Alaje]

Nice, strawman.

Try again.

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT

THEREFORE IT IS A FALLACY

Nope, lung cancer has nothing to do with the conversation and it is an extremely poor comparision.

A mass of rogue cells isn't the same as a human embyo or fetus.

[Alowwvia]

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT

THEREFORE IT IS A FALLACY

Nope, lung cancer has nothing to do with the conversation and it is an extremely poor comparision.

A mass of rogue cells isn't the same as a human embyo or fetus.

Roughly on the same scale of what makes a person a person, really.

[Hathradic States]

Nice, strawman.

Try again.

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT

THEREFORE IT IS A FALLACY

Sounds like everything the pro-choicers throw at pro-lifers when they make an argument they don't life.

[Alowwvia]

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR ARGUMENT

THEREFORE IT IS A FALLACY

Sounds like everything the pro-choicers throw at pro-lifers when they make an argument they don't life.

There aren't really any pro-life 'arguments', just pro-life 'muh feelins'.

won't somebody think of the chillunz abloo abloo

[Zweite Alaje]

Nope, lung cancer has nothing to do with the conversation and it is an extremely poor comparision.

A mass of rogue cells isn't the same as a human embyo or fetus.

Roughly on the same scale of what makes a person a person, really.

No, not really. Embryos and fetuses develop into coherent beings, cancerous masses don't.

[Hathradic States]

Sounds like everything the pro-choicers throw at pro-lifers when they make an argument they don't life.

There aren't really any pro-life 'arguments', just pro-life 'muh feelins'.

won't somebody think of the chillunz abloo abloo

So...the exact same as pro-choice?

Except, instead of "think of the children" it is "think of the women".

[Absurdity]

Most excellent. The children shall LIVE.

[Seperates]

If human rights apply to a blastocyst, they also apply to lung cancer. STOP THE MURDER! END MEDICINE NOW!

Nice, strawman.

Try again.

Ok... Al, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt right now and take this opportunity to try to teach you (and anybody else who happens to read this) something about debate and rhetoric. This is in an attempt to improve the disscussion on these forum, because this "NUH U! NUH U!" bullshit has got to stop.

It is not simply enough to say "It's a strawman." You have to explain WHY it's (you don't even state which part of it's the strawman) a strawman. Otherwise you're not making a point and doing the dance, you're just jacking yourself off and expecting all of us to take you seriously.

[Seperates]

Roughly on the same scale of what makes a person a person, really.

No, not really. Embryos and fetuses develop into coherent beings, cancerous masses don't.

Define "coherent".

[Alowwvia]

Roughly on the same scale of what makes a person a person, really.

No, not really. Embryos and fetuses develop into coherent beings, cancerous masses don't.

What something can 'develop into' is beyond irrelevant.

For instance, consider this:

Someone owns a house. Suddenly, overnight, someone builds ANOTHER house one their front lawn without permission, with a note on it saying 'Moving in in 9 months, maybe'. No rational person would have a moral dilemma in deciding to demolish the house right then and there, because nobody fucking lives there yet and it's an inconceivable. You're not hurting anybody, not until someone's around to understand they are being bulldozed.

[Hathradic States]

No, not really. Embryos and fetuses develop into coherent beings, cancerous masses don't.

What something can 'develop into' is beyond irrelevant.

For instance, consider this:

Someone owns a house. Suddenly, overnight, someone builds ANOTHER house one their front lawn without permission, with a note on it saying 'Moving in in 9 months, maybe'. No rational person would have a moral dilemma in deciding to demolish the house right then and there, because nobody fucking lives there yet and it's an inconceivable. You're not hurting anybody, not until someone's around to understand they are being bulldozed.

Yes, because destroying a house amounts to the same thing as destroying a life.

[Alowwvia]

There aren't really any pro-life 'arguments', just pro-life 'muh feelins'.

won't somebody think of the chillunz abloo abloo

So...the exact same as pro-choice?

Except, instead of "think of the children" it is "think of the women".

Looking out for the happiness and liberty of sapient being takes priority, this is fairly fucking obvious unless you're an edgy nihilist or some shit.

[New England and The Maritimes]

No, not really. Embryos and fetuses develop into coherent beings, cancerous masses don't.

What something can 'develop into' is beyond irrelevant.

For instance, consider this:

Someone owns a house. Suddenly, overnight, someone builds ANOTHER house one their front lawn without permission, with a note on it saying 'Moving in in 9 months, maybe'. No rational person would have a moral dilemma in deciding to demolish the house right then and there, because nobody fucking lives there yet and it's an inconceivable. You're not hurting anybody, not until someone's around to understand they are being bulldozed.

Analogies don't work for this. It'd be more accurate to say someone decides they want to build a house inside of your vagina and you don't get to say "No, thanks."

[Alowwvia]

What something can 'develop into' is beyond irrelevant.

For instance, consider this:

Someone owns a house. Suddenly, overnight, someone builds ANOTHER house one their front lawn without permission, with a note on it saying 'Moving in in 9 months, maybe'. No rational person would have a moral dilemma in deciding to demolish the house right then and there, because nobody fucking lives there yet and it's an inconceivable. You're not hurting anybody, not until someone's around to understand they are being bulldozed.

Yes, because destroying a house amounts to the same thing as destroying a life.

'Life' is a loaded term if there ever was one. There's nothing metaphysical about it, it's just proteins and acids that like to recreate themselves in certain patterns.

[Wisconsin9]

Most excellent. The children shall LIVE.

(Image)

NOT CHILDREN, YOU TWIT, LOOK IN A MOTHER FUCKING DICTIONARY!

[Alowwvia]

Calling an unborn human embryo a 'child' is intellectually dishonest and loaded.

[Absurdity]

Most excellent. The children shall LIVE.

(Image)

NOT CHILDREN, YOU TWIT, LOOK IN A MOTHER FUCKING DICTIONARY!

1.2/10

Settle down, skippy.

[Zweite Alaje]

What something can 'develop into' is beyond irrelevant.

For instance, consider this:

Someone owns a house. Suddenly, overnight, someone builds ANOTHER house one their front lawn without permission, with a note on it saying 'Moving in in 9 months, maybe'. No rational person would have a moral dilemma in deciding to demolish the house right then and there, because nobody fucking lives there yet and it's an inconceivable. You're not hurting anybody, not until someone's around to understand they are being bulldozed.

Yes, because destroying a house amounts to the same thing as destroying a life.

Because an inanimate object is equal to a human, amirite? *nods*

Thus, the pro-choicers continue to demonstrate their attempts at dehumanization.

[Wisconsin9]

NOT CHILDREN, YOU TWIT, LOOK IN A MOTHER FUCKING DICTIONARY!

1.2/10

Settle down, skippy.

No. Very little pisses me off more than people who don't bother to look up the correct definition of a word before using it. I suppose you could call me a definition Nazi.

And don't call me skippy. Ever.

[Hathradic States]

So...the exact same as pro-choice?

Except, instead of "think of the children" it is "think of the women".

Looking out for the happiness and liberty of sapient being takes priority, this is fairly fucking obvious unless you're an edgy nihilist or some shit.

You know, this is what bugs me most about pro-choice people...I mean, really bugs me. They won't even admit it is murder, that it is killing another human being. It is such dishonesty with themselves it almost makes me want to puke. I mean, sure, I advocate killing many, many, many people for stupid reasons, like "they took our flag!" or "that stripper took my wallet!", but at least I will admit it is murder and mass slaughter. [/end rant]

And who is to decide what takes priority? Not an unbiased person...no matter which side wins.

[Alowwvia]

Yes, because destroying a house amounts to the same thing as destroying a life.

Because an inanimate object is equal to a human, amirite? *nods*

Thus, the pro-choicers continue to demonstrate their attempts at dehumanization.

I feel no allegience to anyone because they so happen to be made up of the same reproducing chains of acids and proteins as I am.

I feel kinship with people because they are persons with their own thoughts and experiences, who live in subjective reality just like I do. I don't care what buildup of protein and sugars and bases and acids brought them to that state, they're people.

In the same regard, if clumps of similar protein and amino acids and such exist that do not posses an independent mind, there is no ethical dilemma in keeping them from forming into a group of protein and other organic material that can.

[Alowwvia]

Looking out for the happiness and liberty of sapient being takes priority, this is fairly fucking obvious unless you're an edgy nihilist or some shit.

You know, this is what bugs me most about pro-choice people...I mean, really bugs me. They won't even admit it is murder, that it is killing another human being. It is such dishonesty with themselves it almost makes me want to puke. I mean, sure, I advocate killing many, many, many people for stupid reasons, like "they took our flag!" or "that stripper took my wallet!", but at least I will admit it is murder and mass slaughter. [/end rant]

And who is to decide what takes priority? Not an unbiased person...no matter which side wins.

Murder involves someONE dying at some point.

An embryo is not someONE until it is a person.

[Wisconsin9]

Looking out for the happiness and liberty of sapient being takes priority, this is fairly fucking obvious unless you're an edgy nihilist or some shit.

You know, this is what bugs me most about pro-choice people...I mean, really bugs me. They won't even admit it is murder, that it is killing another human being. It is such dishonesty with themselves it almost makes me want to puke. I mean, sure, I advocate killing many, many, many people for stupid reasons, like "they took our flag!" or "that stripper took my wallet!", but at least I will admit it is murder and mass slaughter. [/end rant]

And who is to decide what takes priority? Not an unbiased person...no matter which side wins.

Murder is, by definition, illegal. The fact that abortion isn't illegal means it isn't murder.

[Zweite Alaje]

Because an inanimate object is equal to a human, amirite? *nods*

Thus, the pro-choicers continue to demonstrate their attempts at dehumanization.

I feel no allegience to anyone because they so happen to be made up of the same reproducing chains of acids and proteins as I am.

I feel kinship with people because they are persons with their own thoughts and experiences, who live in subjective reality just like I do. I don't care what buildup of protein and sugars and bases and acids brought them to that state, they're people.

In the same regard, if clumps of similar protein and amino acids and such exist that do not posses an independent mind, there is no ethical dilemma in keeping them from forming into a group of protein and other organic material that can.

Yes, there is. It is still a human, that has committed no crime in order to warrant it's destruction.

Most excellent. The children shall LIVE.

(Image)

NOT CHILDREN, YOU TWIT, LOOK IN A MOTHER FUCKING DICTIONARY!

What make it not a child, hmm? Someones child is their offspring, right? So, the unborn ARE infact children.