Abortion Law Reform Passes in New Zealand

[Neanderthaland]

Well, any nucleic cell. But yes, scratching your nose is genocide.

Gametes, with 23 chromosome pairs.

Yes, obviously those too. But not, for instance, red blood cells. Which are non-nucleic.

[Cisairse]

Gametes, with 23 chromosome pairs.

Erm... if they have 23 chromosome pairs they're not gametes.

Maybe not for you!

[Polding]

Fetuses are human, the distinction that humans must be born to be human is entirely arbitrary (how does birth confer ‘human-ness’?). Ergo, Kat. believes that it is perfectly fine to murder humans in their infancy, which are called ‘babies’ and ‘children’ because most people aren’t anal-retentive and fetuses are so near children that they will be children if they weren’t aborted.

Not arbitrary at all. It's a rather important part of the legal definition.

That’s crazy bro, but I don’t remember fuckin askin.

[Farnhamia]

Gametes, with 23 chromosome pairs.

Erm... if they have 23 chromosome pairs they're not gametes.

Picky, picky.

[Godular]

Not arbitrary at all. It's a rather important part of the legal definition.

That’s crazy bro, but I don’t remember fuckin askin.

Whether you ask or not is irrelevant. You're relying on this presumption of arbitrarity of the distinction when it is not so.

[Necroghastia]

Not arbitrary at all. It's a rather important part of the legal definition.

That’s crazy bro, but I don’t remember fuckin askin.

Whether you asked is entirely arbitrary.

[Cekoviu]

Erm... if they have 23 chromosome pairs they're not gametes.

Picky, picky.

[Farnhamia]

Picky, picky.

Don't drag your liberal diplotic agenda into this discussion.

Fine, I made a mistake ... sheesh.

[Polding]

Fetuses are human, the distinction that humans must be born to be human is entirely arbitrary (how does birth confer ‘human-ness’?).

It doesn't, and no one is arguing that. What is at debate is what makes a human being.

Ergo, Kat. believes that it is perfectly fine to murder humans in their infancy, which are called ‘babies’ and ‘children’ because most people aren’t anal-retentive and fetuses are so near children that they will be children if they weren’t aborted.

A seed is so near a flower that it would be one if it was planted, yet I doubt you'll find many people who peddle bouquets of seeds.

That is exactly what is being argued when people believe humans can be legitimately killed before they are born. A human being is only ‘human’ after it is born, therefore birth confers ‘Human-ness’; therefore, the unborn baby isn’t human but a parasitic entity. But seeds will flourish into flowers, thus they are called flower seeds.

[Godular]

It doesn't, and no one is arguing that. What is at debate is what makes a human being.

A seed is so near a flower that it would be one if it was planted, yet I doubt you'll find many people who peddle bouquets of seeds.

That is exactly what is being argued when people believe humans can be legitimately killed before they are born. A human being is only ‘human’ after it is born, therefore birth confers ‘Human-ness’; therefore, the unborn baby isn’t human but a parasitic entity. But seeds will flourish into flowers, thus they are called flower seeds.

Even if we were to give fetuses the same rights as born persons, they'd still have no right to remain within the woman's body without her consent.

[The New California Republic]

Wrong. Children have been born. Fetuses that have not been born are not children. Abortion affects fetuses, not children. Ergo, your statement that Kat supports the murder of children is inaccurate.

Fetuses are human, the distinction that humans must be born to be human is entirely arbitrary (how does birth confer ‘human-ness’?). Ergo, Kat. believes that it is perfectly fine to murder humans in their infancy, which are called ‘babies’ and ‘children’ because most people aren’t anal-retentive and fetuses are so near children that they will be children if they weren’t aborted.

If you aren't willing to abide by some basic definitions and use them interchangeably when they are not interchangeable then that is entirely on you.

[Polding]

That is exactly what is being argued when people believe humans can be legitimately killed before they are born. A human being is only ‘human’ after it is born, therefore birth confers ‘Human-ness’; therefore, the unborn baby isn’t human but a parasitic entity. But seeds will flourish into flowers, thus they are called flower seeds.

Even if we were to give fetuses the same rights as born persons, they'd still have no right to remain within the woman's body without her consent.

They can be forgiven for not being able to ask, I’m sure, mon ami!

[Polding]

Fetuses are human, the distinction that humans must be born to be human is entirely arbitrary (how does birth confer ‘human-ness’?). Ergo, Kat. believes that it is perfectly fine to murder humans in their infancy, which are called ‘babies’ and ‘children’ because most people aren’t anal-retentive and fetuses are so near children that they will be children if they weren’t aborted.

If you aren't willing to abide by some basic definitions and use them interchangeably when they are not interchangeable then that is entirely on you.

Its entirely on you that you work under definitions that are wrong.

[The New California Republic]

A human being is only ‘human’ after it is born, therefore birth confers ‘Human-ness’

That is not what is being said. Nobody here denies that the fetus is human in that it features human cells etc. The issue here is whether it is a human being, i.e. a person.

But as Godular just said, that is ultimately irrelevant anyway if we give the fetus the same rights as born persons, as that doesn't grant them a right to remain in the woman without her consent.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Even if we were to give fetuses the same rights as born persons, they'd still have no right to remain within the woman's body without her consent.

They can be forgiven for not being able to ask, I’m sure, mon ami!

Being unable to ask (sleeping) still does not excuse putting your dick in somebody else without consent.

[The New California Republic]

If you aren't willing to abide by some basic definitions and use them interchangeably when they are not interchangeable then that is entirely on you.

Its entirely on you that you work under definitions that are wrong.

Except they aren't wrong though, as has been repeatedly shown in the previous abortion threads.

[Necroghastia]

It doesn't, and no one is arguing that. What is at debate is what makes a human being.

A seed is so near a flower that it would be one if it was planted, yet I doubt you'll find many people who peddle bouquets of seeds.

That is exactly what is being argued when people believe humans can be legitimately killed before they are born. A human being is only ‘human’ after it is born, therefore birth confers ‘Human-ness’; therefore, the unborn baby isn’t human but a parasitic entity. But seeds will flourish into flowers, thus they are called flower seeds.

Did you even read what I said? Particularly the word being?

Even if we were to give fetuses the same rights as born persons, they'd still have no right to remain within the woman's body without her consent.

They can be forgiven for not being able to ask, I’m sure, mon ami!

Hmmm, I wonder why they can't?

If you aren't willing to abide by some basic definitions and use them interchangeably when they are not interchangeable then that is entirely on you.

Its entirely on you that you work under definitions that are wrong.

Says the person who has been murdering the word "arbitrary."

[Cisairse]

Wrong. Children have been born. Fetuses that have not been born are not children. Abortion affects fetuses, not children. Ergo, your statement that Kat supports the murder of children is inaccurate.

Fetuses are human, the distinction that humans must be born to be human is entirely arbitrary (how does birth confer ‘human-ness’?). Ergo, Kat. believes that it is perfectly fine to murder humans in their infancy, which are called ‘babies’ and ‘children’ because most people aren’t anal-retentive and fetuses are so near children that they will be children if they weren’t aborted.

Birth confers "human-ness" because a metabolizing organism is by definition not alive if they are unable to maintain homeostasis in a neutral environment. They are, for all reasonable definitions, dead. This is similar to how we do not describe a virus as "alive" even though they meet some classifications of life, because they do not meet all of them.

Also of note is that Scientific American article states "A metabolically active sack, devoid of genetic material and the potential for propagation, is also not alive." They are talking in the context of viruses, but "a metabolically active sack" is actually a pretty damn good description of a fetus.

[Sundiata]

Neither is tolerating promiscuity.

You still have yet to explain what the big deal about that is.

It's deceptive, degrading, and one of the worst things to do with someone you're not married with because it's the false expression of love.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You still have yet to explain what the big deal about that is.

It's deceptive, degrading, and one of the worst things to do with someone you're not married with because it's the false expression of love.

Who are you to pronounce what's love and what's not love? The arrogant presumption on display here is making me nauseous.

[Polding]

A human being is only ‘human’ after it is born, therefore birth confers ‘Human-ness’

That is not what is being said. Nobody here denies that the fetus is human in that it features human cells etc. The issue here is whether it is a human being, i.e. a person.

But as Godular just said, that is ultimately irrelevant anyway if we give the fetus the same rights as born persons, as that doesn't grant them a right to remain in the woman without her consent.

That’s exactly the argument. You acknowledge that it possesses ‘human cells’ but do not acknowledge it as a ‘human being’. That is a denial of ‘human-ness’, thus making it a parasitic organism. The organism only assumes the status of ‘human being’ after or during birth; the only conclusion, then, is that birth confers ‘human-ness’.

[Cisairse]

You still have yet to explain what the big deal about that is.

It's deceptive, degrading, and one of the worst things to do with someone you're not married with because it's the false expression of love.

There's other ways to express love. Sexuality is, generally, a way to experience pleasure. And one of the cheapest ways, too.

[The New California Republic]

You still have yet to explain what the big deal about that is.

It's deceptive, degrading, and one of the worst things to do with someone you're not married with because it's the false expression of love.

Considering that you have previously said that love can only exist within marriage we'll take that with a big pinch of salt.

[Necroghastia]

You still have yet to explain what the big deal about that is.

It's deceptive,

How? To whom?

degrading,

How? To whom?

and one of the worst things to do with someone you're not married with because it's the false expression of love.

I'm not even sure what you mean by a "false expression of love."

[Celritannia]

Are there any females in here who are against abortions?