NationStates

Necroghastia wrote:

Polding wrote: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?

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

Hmmm, I wonder why they can't?

Polding wrote:Its entirely on you that you work under definitions that are wrong.

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

Who are you?

Polding wrote:

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


Hmmm, I wonder why they can't?


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

Who are you?

They are Necroghastia, the name is right there.

Polding wrote:

The New California Republic wrote: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’.

This is a case in point of the confusion that is caused when you do not use words with precision, and instead use them interchangeably. I warned you that this would happen.

It isn't a denial of human-ness at all, as I acknowledge, as do others, that the fetus is human, but not a human being; i.e. a person.

Polding wrote:

The New California Republic wrote: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’.

Or, you know, being.

Celritannia wrote:Are there any females in here who are against abortions?

I feel like you already know the answer to that question.

Cisairse wrote:

Celritannia wrote:Are there any females in here who are against abortions?

I feel like you already know the answer to that question.

I do, I am just making a point that it's only men in here that want to control what women can do.

Polding wrote:

Godular wrote:
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!

Their capacity for self-determination (or lack thereof) is also functionally irrelevant.

Necroghastia wrote:

Sundiata wrote: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."

Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each other, they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage. To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

The New California Republic wrote:

Polding wrote: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’.

This is a case in point of the confusion that is caused when you do not use words with precision, and instead use them interchangeably. I warned you that this would happen.

It isn't a denial of human-ness at all, as I acknowledge, as do others, that the fetus is human, but not a human being; i.e. a person.

This isn’t confusing whatsoever lmao. ‘Human-ness’ is the fundamental essence of being a human. All humans possess it, or otherwise they would not be human. There is no difference between ‘human’ and ‘human being’, they’re the same thing. The only way to justify murdering another human is to say they aren’t human or that being human doesn’t matter.

Sundiata wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:How? To whom?

How? To whom?

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

Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage. To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

Try telling two people who have been in a relationship with each other for years but not married that their love isn't real. See how far you get.

Sundiata wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:How? To whom?

How? To whom?

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

Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage. To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

Marriage is not the final stop for true love, it all depends on the person. You are also neglecting other cultures and faiths (and even those without like myself) who see it differently.

True love depends on the people involved with the relationship.

Sundiata wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:How? To whom?

How? To whom?

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

Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each other, they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage. To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

lol, no.

Marriage for love as normal is actually a rather new trend, throughout the vast majority of history marriage was solely an economic or political affair, including in Christian countries.

Polding wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:This is a case in point of the confusion that is caused when you do not use words with precision, and instead use them interchangeably. I warned you that this would happen.

It isn't a denial of human-ness at all, as I acknowledge, as do others, that the fetus is human, but not a human being; i.e. a person.

This isn’t confusing whatsoever lmao. ‘Human-ness’ is the fundamental essence of being a human. All humans possess it, or otherwise they would not be human. There is no difference between ‘human’ and ‘human being’, they’re the same thing. The only way to justify murdering another human is to say they aren’t human or that being human doesn’t matter.

To be human is also to be an independent living being, separate from another person.

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage. To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

Try telling two people who have been in a relationship with each other for years but not married that their love isn't real. See how far you get.

Such a shame that responding to such insinuations with a challenge to a duel is no longer legal. <.>

The New California Republic wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage. To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

Try telling two people who have been in a relationship with each other for years but not married that their love isn't real. See how far you get.

You see NCR they are simply in denial or are actively working against God and supporting Satan by spreading falsehoods throughout the community.

Celritannia wrote:

Polding wrote:This isn’t confusing whatsoever lmao. ‘Human-ness’ is the fundamental essence of being a human. All humans possess it, or otherwise they would not be human. There is no difference between ‘human’ and ‘human being’, they’re the same thing. The only way to justify murdering another human is to say they aren’t human or that being human doesn’t matter.

To be human is also to be an independent living being, separate from another person.

I reject that definition.

Polding wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
To be human is also to be an independent living being, separate from another person.

I reject that definition.

I reject your clouded worldview in its entirety.

Polding wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:This is a case in point of the confusion that is caused when you do not use words with precision, and instead use them interchangeably. I warned you that this would happen.

It isn't a denial of human-ness at all, as I acknowledge, as do others, that the fetus is human, but not a human being; i.e. a person.

This isn’t confusing whatsoever lmao. ‘Human-ness’ is the fundamental essence of being a human. All humans possess it, or otherwise they would not be human. There is no difference between ‘human’ and ‘human being’, they’re the same thing. The only way to justify murdering another human is to say they aren’t human or that being human doesn’t matter.

Wrong. Something can be human, but not a human being.

And define "human-ness" please, so that it isn't just inserted in as an empty phrase.

Polding wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
To be human is also to be an independent living being, separate from another person.

I reject that definition.

You can reject a fact all you like. But one basic principle of being human is to be an independent being in your own right. Babies are once born.

Sundiata wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:How? To whom?

How? To whom?

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

Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each other, they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage.

What about a woman and a woman? A man and a man? NB people? Three or more people? They're all as capable as love as the average straight couple.

To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

What makes it bad, though? You say it is, but you don't explain why. Nothing here describes deception or degradation. The closest you come is "[leading] astray from God," and that still answers nothing. Heck, it raises more questions.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

So, you have to love one another before you marry, right? Sounds like love's a prerequisite, in which case, it's entirely separate.

New Zealand's timing is shit. Not only is it a really bad time to time to introduce this. Aside from the fact that most hospitals are already on elective surgeries, now, more than ever, we should be discouraging non-marital sex. Wait till Covid-19 is over

Polding wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
To be human is also to be an independent living being, separate from another person.

I reject that definition.

I reject your rejection.

Australian rePublic wrote:New Zealand's timing is shit. Not only is it a really bad time to time to introduce this. Aside from the fact that most hospitals are already on elective surgeries, now, more than ever, we should be discouraging non-marital sex. Wait till Covid-19 is over

Since you apparently didn't see it the first time:

New haven america wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Whatever your views on abortion, this is not the time to legalise it. All the people who couldn't legally abortions will flood the system with requests for abortions, and more undo stress is all that the system needs. Wait till bloody fucking Covid-19 dies down

You are aware that most hospitals don't usually perform abortions unless it's a medical necessity?

There are these interesting things called "Abortion Clinics" that specialize in them, and some of them, like Planned Parenthood, offer a wide range of sexual health services and information to both males and females.

Sundiata wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:How? To whom?

How? To whom?

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

Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each other, they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage. To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

is this satire

Sundiata wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:How? To whom?

How? To whom?

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

Essentially, if a man and woman truly love each other, they marry and proceed to consummate that marriage. To perform the marital act before marriage is not to will the good of the other and lead one's partner astray from God, ergo, not true love.

Love and marriage are inseparable.

Oh. Well... Gay people can love each other. I guess you must approve of gay marriage. Since marriage and love are inseparable.