Pro-stem-cell-research yet pro-Christianity?

[Antityranicals]

Both very good descriptors for abortion, too.

Abortion isn't genocide.

Yes it is. Just because multiple people do a mass killing doesn't mean that it isn't genocide. After all, it's not as though Hitler himself went and killed six million Jews on his own, yet I'm sure you agree that the Holocaust was a genocide.

[Vetalia]

"kill" and "genocide" are perfectly valid options.

Sort of, when considering Pol Pot's death count and reasoning "kill" essentially means "murder" but under more normal circumstances killing is not always murder.

Also, pardon my language but it is also really, really fucked up when you manage to commit genocide not only against others but your own people. Pol Pot still stands as the only leader in human history that managed to do nothing good whatsoever for his country.

[Rojava Free State]

What kind of weird biomechanical horror are you two gabbing about? Jesus Christ I'm gonna have nightmares tonight

Antityranicals was asserting that a fetus in a woman is equivalent to a person in a house. This horror is just me trying to force his ridiculous comparison into being something even remotely equivalent.

As far as I'm concerned, a fetus that hasn't developed viable organs and the appearance of a person isn't a person. It's something that may become human but human it is not. By the time the fetus is what I would call a human, it can survive outside the womb (with some medical assistance or maybe without it) and can become a fully grown normal person. A fetus that is two months old is as human as the skin cells I killed when I washed my face this morning.

[Antityranicals]

True, if there were no force pushing the two objects together. However, there is a force, gravity, keeping the chair and the person together, just as the only reason why it is hard to break a metal chain is because of another force, one stronger than gravity, keeping the molecules of the chain together. The only difference lies in the strength of the force in question.

Sorry buddy, but it is a real stretch to say that under normal circumstances an object resting on another is "attached" to it, it is not how we would normally conceptualise an object at rest on another object.

The only difference is the strength of the connecting force. An object is defined not by what it is attached to, but by what it is.

[Rojava Free State]

"kill" and "genocide" are perfectly valid options.

Sort of, when considering Pol Pot's death count and reasoning "kill" essentially means "murder" but under more normal circumstances killing is not always murder.

Also, pardon my language but it is also really, really fucked up when you manage to commit genocide not only against others but your own people. Pol Pot still stands as the only leader in human history that managed to do nothing good whatsoever for his country.

Pol pot literally enslaved the prople of Cambodia

[The New California Republic]

Abortion isn't genocide.

Yes it is. Just because multiple people do a mass killing doesn't mean that it isn't genocide. After all, it's not as though Hitler himself went and killed six million Jews on his own, yet I'm sure you agree that the Holocaust was a genocide.

Sorry, but that does not make abortion and genocide the same thing, as genocide is intentional action to destroy a people in whole or in part. Abortion does not fit that.

[Antityranicals]

Things are defined by their essence. The essence of an embryo is just as fundamentally different from the essence of his or her mother as the your essence is different than that of your mother. Physical attachment does not homogenize two separate essences.

Define "essence".

Exactly, this is why I keep telling people Pol Pot did NOT murder ANY ONE and was a GREAT GUY.

"kill" and "genocide" are perfectly valid options.

"Essence" is that which make an object what it is.

[Estanglia]

Abortion isn't genocide.

Yes it is. Just because multiple people do a mass killing doesn't mean that it isn't genocide. After all, it's not as though Hitler himself went and killed six million Jews on his own, yet I'm sure you agree that the Holocaust was a genocide.

Is there a genocide against Americans being committed by murderers?

If you boil genocide to merely "mass killing", then that above must be a genocide, no?

[Rojava Free State]

The funny thing is how the people who are anti abortion are also against birth control pills. Guess what? There wouldn't be as many abortions if we prevented unwanted fetuses. This can be accomplished by first making birth control available and secondly by teaching birth control in public school health classes and telling anyone who's parents don't approve to drop out and go enroll in Oakland Christian Academy where they can bury their head in the sand and pretend that the real world and all of its horrors (evolution, premarital sex, drinking alcohol, smoking weed, gay people existing) don't exist.

[Antityranicals]

Yes it is. Just because multiple people do a mass killing doesn't mean that it isn't genocide. After all, it's not as though Hitler himself went and killed six million Jews on his own, yet I'm sure you agree that the Holocaust was a genocide.

Sorry, but that does not make abortion and genocide the same thing, as genocide is intentional action to destroy a people in whole or in part. Abortion does not fit that.

The legalization of abortion is an intentional argument to destroy the subset of the human race which is not yet born and which is undesired by their parents. The legalization of abortion is genocide.

[The New California Republic]

Sorry buddy, but it is a real stretch to say that under normal circumstances an object resting on another is "attached" to it, it is not how we would normally conceptualise an object at rest on another object.

The only difference is the strength of the connecting force. An object is defined not by what it is attached to, but by what it is.

A fetus is connected to the woman by more than force though. There is a connection, a link, of matter.

[Antityranicals]

Yes it is. Just because multiple people do a mass killing doesn't mean that it isn't genocide. After all, it's not as though Hitler himself went and killed six million Jews on his own, yet I'm sure you agree that the Holocaust was a genocide.

Is there a genocide against Americans being committed by murderers?

If you boil genocide to merely "mass killing", then that above must be a genocide, no?

It has a lot to do with scale, which, in the case of worldwide abortions, is well over a billion, and as such abortion isn't just genocide, but the largest genocide in human history.

[Estanglia]

Sorry buddy, but it is a real stretch to say that under normal circumstances an object resting on another is "attached" to it, it is not how we would normally conceptualise an object at rest on another object.

The only difference is the strength of the connecting force. An object is defined not by what it is attached to, but by what it is.

Well, there is also the "fetus is entirely dependent upon the mother to the point of death when disconnected, the same doesn't exist for a person and a house" difference.

Define "essence".



"kill" and "genocide" are perfectly valid options.

"Essence" is that which make an object what it is.

That is unhelpfully vague.

[The New California Republic]

Sorry, but that does not make abortion and genocide the same thing, as genocide is intentional action to destroy a people in whole or in part. Abortion does not fit that.

The legalization of abortion is an intentional argument to destroy the subset of the human race which is not yet born and which is undesired by their parents. The legalization of abortion is genocide.

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people in whole or in part. Abortion does not fit that description, it just doesn't.

[Antityranicals]

The only difference is the strength of the connecting force. An object is defined not by what it is attached to, but by what it is.

A fetus is connected to the woman by more than force though. There is a connection, a link, of matter.

That connection, that link, is what we like to call intermolecular forces. Take away those, and the atoms which make up things would simply separate, and everything would dissolve.

[Antityranicals]

The legalization of abortion is an intentional argument to destroy the subset of the human race which is not yet born and which is undesired by their parents. The legalization of abortion is genocide.

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people in whole or in part. Abortion does not fit that description, it just doesn't.

A people is a subset of the human race. Abortion kills such a subset of the human race.

[Estanglia]

Is there a genocide against Americans being committed by murderers?

If you boil genocide to merely "mass killing", then that above must be a genocide, no?

It has a lot to do with scale, which, in the case of worldwide abortions, is well over a billion, and as such abortion isn't just genocide, but the largest genocide in human history.

So scale.

Is WWI a genocide? It fits the criteria presented so far: mass body count (in the millions), the parties were intentionally killing each other on the basis of being part of the party, and 'soldier' and 'unborn' are both temporary criteria (as in one can stop being a soldier just like one can stop being unborn).

[Antityranicals]

It has a lot to do with scale, which, in the case of worldwide abortions, is well over a billion, and as such abortion isn't just genocide, but the largest genocide in human history.

So scale.

Is WWI a genocide? It fits the criteria presented so far: mass body count (in the millions), the parties were intentionally killing each other on the basis of being part of the party, and 'soldier' and 'unborn' are both temporary criteria (as in one can stop being a soldier just like one can stop being unborn).

I'd say WWI was a genocide.

[The New California Republic]

A fetus is connected to the woman by more than force though. There is a connection, a link, of matter.

That connection, that link, is what we like to call intermolecular forces. Take away those, and the atoms which make up things would simply separate, and everything would dissolve.

And still it is different from force alone. A connection between a chair and a person is self-evidently different to the connection between a fetus and a woman.

[Antityranicals]

That connection, that link, is what we like to call intermolecular forces. Take away those, and the atoms which make up things would simply separate, and everything would dissolve.

And still it is different from force alone. A connection between a chair and a person is self-evidently different to the connection between a fetus and a woman.

Why self-evident? Scientifically, both come down to forces, and without them, would not exist.

[The New California Republic]

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people in whole or in part. Abortion does not fit that description, it just doesn't.

A people is a subset of the human race. Abortion kills such a subset of the human race.

No. What we class as a people in regards to genocide is clearly defined in the following definition:

The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such"

Abortion is not that.

[The New California Republic]

And still it is different from force alone. A connection between a chair and a person is self-evidently different to the connection between a fetus and a woman.

Why self-evident? Scientifically, both come down to forces, and without them, would not exist.

If you keep reducing things ridiculously to the point they are equivalent, when what you are excluding indicates they are not, then I really can't discuss this any further with you.

[Antityranicals]

A people is a subset of the human race. Abortion kills such a subset of the human race.

No. What we class as a people in regards to genocide is clearly defined in the following definition:

The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such"

Abortion is not that.

Know well that I literally don't care what the irrelevant bureaucrats at the UN want to declare, and that their declaration literally changes nothing.

[Antityranicals]

Why self-evident? Scientifically, both come down to forces, and without them, would not exist.

If you keep reducing things ridiculously to the point they are equivalent, when what you are excluding indicates they are not, then I really can't discuss this any further with you.

I'm just demonstrating that physical attachment doesn't make two things one.

[The New California Republic]

No. What we class as a people in regards to genocide is clearly defined in the following definition:


Abortion is not that.

Know well that I literally don't care what the irrelevant bureaucrats at the UN want to declare, and that their declaration literally changes nothing.

If you are determined to discard the definitions of words again, and instead substitute your own definition in order to try to make a point, then I don't see how we can discuss this with any semblance of seriousness.