NationStates

Dyakovo wrote:

Nulono wrote:Says who?

Personhood wrote:being a person

"Person wrote:A person is most broadly defined as any individual self-conscious or rational being, or any entity having rights and duties; or often more narrowly defined as an individual human being in particular.

Nulono wrote:Your excuse was "No, because at that point the child is legally a person.". Is legal personhood relevant or not?

Yes, legal personhood is relevant. Acknowledging legal personhood as relevant is not, however, the same thing as saying that it is the only thing that is relevant. So you can quit building straw men.

Umbagar wrote:

Arilando wrote:Yes but afterwards she can choose to have an abortion, dont she have the right to do so? Also abortion saves live, there is a higher change of dying giving birth than dying having an abortion.

At some point a fetus is still a child. I believe that you get 1 choice in whether or not to have a baby, which is when you decide to have sex. Killing off things that will be children on a whim is immoral in my opinion.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Nulono wrote:Abortion has a 100% chance of death.

Lies.

http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html

Dyakovo wrote:

Nulono wrote:Right, 'cause it's totally the fetus's fault. Fetuses just walk around in the astral plane, rubbing their hands maniacally and looking for a woman to kill.

Building straw men is your favorite pastime isn't it?

Umbagar wrote:At some point a fetus is still a child.

Nulono wrote:

Arilando wrote:Even if it cannot feel pain?

If I killed you painlessly, would that be okay? What if I killed someone with congenital insensitivity to pain?

It would not be okay if i said i did not want to be killed

Arilando wrote:1. he said it should only be allowed in special circumstances, i believe it should allways be allowed
2. The infant can be adopted, a fetus cannot

2. The infant can't be adopted until you find an adoptive family. The fetus can't be adopted until birth. What does being able to be adopted have to do with the right to not be killed?

A fetus is a burden on the mother, a adopted infant is not

Arilando wrote:Yes but afterwards she can choose to have an abortion, dont she have the right to do so? Also abortion saves live, there is a higher change of dying giving birth than dying having an abortion.

Abortion has a 100% chance of death.

Nulono wrote:

Umbagar wrote:
there are several reasons why forcing a woman to have a rapist's child is wrong:
1. it can cause emotional damage if you know that the genetics of the man who harmed you is inside you.
2. Even if the baby is born and the woman has to look after it she will probably abuse it if it is not wanted.

1. It's not okay to kill someone just because you don't like their genes.
2. Then put the baby for adoption. It's not okay to kill someone because you don't think you'd be a good parent.

Nulono wrote:I'm leaning towards it being a hoax. There's no reason for them to get a 3D ultrasound or go into so much detail over the development of a child they may abort. The language they use is clearly acknowledging "Wiggles" as a member of the family.

I voted for birth just to be safe, though.

Also, the 4chan raid was inevitable.

Dyakovo wrote:

Nulono wrote:Abortion has a 100% chance of death.

Really? everyone who has had an abortion has died? The statistics on people who have had multiple abortions must be made up then...

Dyakovo wrote:

Umbagar wrote:At some point a fetus is still a child.

Wrong. If it is a fetus it isn't a child. If it is a child it is no longer a fetus.

Dyakovo wrote:

Umbagar wrote:At some point a fetus is still a child.

Wrong. If it is a fetus it isn't a child. If it is a child it is no longer a fetus.

Nulono wrote:Fetuses are not "things that will be children"; they are children.

Umbagar wrote:

Arilando wrote:Yes but afterwards she can choose to have an abortion, dont she have the right to do so? Also abortion saves live, there is a higher change of dying giving birth than dying having an abortion.

At some point a fetus is still a child. I believe that you get 1 choice in whether or not to have a baby, which is when you decide to have sex. Killing off things that will be children on a whim is immoral in my opinion.

Nulono wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:


Yes, legal personhood is relevant. Acknowledging legal personhood as relevant is not, however, the same thing as saying that it is the only thing that is relevant. So you can quit building straw men.

Apparently it's not relevant, because you disregard it whenever you don't agree with it.

Nulono wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Building straw men is your favorite pastime isn't it?

It's not necessary when your opponents are already made of straw.

Arilando wrote:

Umbagar wrote:
At some point a fetus is still a child. I believe that you get 1 choice in whether or not to have a baby, which is when you decide to have sex. Killing off things that will be children on a whim is immoral in my opinion.

So a man can have sex without any consequences, but a women have to give birth (a wery painfull event) to a baby?

Nulono wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Wrong. If it is a fetus it isn't a child. If it is a child it is no longer a fetus.

There are multiple definitions of "child". There is "a human being between birth and puberty", as in "Pedophilia is sexual attraction to children.", and there's "a son or daughter, an offspring", as in "My children are 35 and 23 years old.".

Umbagar wrote:

Arilando wrote:So a man can have sex without any consequences, but a women have to give birth (a wery painfull event) to a baby?

Child support.

Arilando wrote:

Umbagar wrote:
Child support.

Why are you against having sex for fun? And how is it justified that someone should pay child support if they do not themselves decide what happens to the child support?

Staenwald wrote:There's been another thing like this on recently. Heard about the russian artist who has strapped himself into an electric chair- and people online get to click and zap him. it's supposed to be a test to portray if free will really comes with any internal moral limits. He's not die...but has been zapped afew times, so obviously some people are lacking. Looks like we still need government...even if I do think a libertarian would be better.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Staenwald wrote:There's been another thing like this on recently. Heard about the russian artist who has strapped himself into an electric chair- and people online get to click and zap him. it's supposed to be a test to portray if free will really comes with any internal moral limits. He's not die...but has been zapped afew times, so obviously some people are lacking. Looks like we still need government...even if I do think a libertarian would be better.

Got a link?

Umbagar wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Wrong. If it is a fetus it isn't a child. If it is a child it is no longer a fetus.

It's a child the same way an egg is a chicken. There's a reason vegetarians only eat non-fertilized eggs.

Umbagar wrote:

Nulono wrote:1. It's not okay to kill someone just because you don't like their genes.
2. Then put the baby for adoption. It's not okay to kill someone because you don't think you'd be a good parent.

If someone comes down the street grabs you, violates you, and hurts you that causes permanent and scarring emotional damage.then imagine living in a state of perpetual self loathing at the fetus in your stomach for 9 months, plus lost work and wages that could bankrupt a poor person. That is enough to drive someone insane and ruin their life.

Dyakovo wrote:

Umbagar wrote:At some point a fetus is still a child.

Wrong. If it is a fetus it isn't a child. If it is a child it is no longer a fetus.

Arilando wrote:

Nulono wrote:If I killed you painlessly, would that be okay? What if I killed someone with congenital insensitivity to pain?

It would not be okay if i said i did not want to be killed


2. The infant can't be adopted until you find an adoptive family. The fetus can't be adopted until birth. What does being able to be adopted have to do with the right to not be killed?

A fetus is a burden on the mother, a adopted infant is not

Abortion has a 100% chance of death.

Please explain furher.

Wesibaden wrote:

Nulono wrote:I'm leaning towards it being a hoax. There's no reason for them to get a 3D ultrasound or go into so much detail over the development of a child they may abort. The language they use is clearly acknowledging "Wiggles" as a member of the family.

I voted for birth just to be safe, though.

Also, the 4chan raid was inevitable.

4chan are a bunch of nerds.................... But anyways i won't vote because its up to them to decide not strangers.


And enough with abortions it is the mothers choice so everyone needs to back off.......

Dyakovo wrote:

Nulono wrote:Apparently it's not relevant, because you disregard it whenever you don't agree with it.

Uh-huh. Care to show me where I have disregarded legal personhood?

Nulono wrote:It's not necessary when your opponents are already made of straw.

Maybe you should try debating with actual people then, rather than carictatures of your opponents that you have built in your head. Honestly, the real world isn't that scary a place.

Umbagar wrote:

Nulono wrote:1. It's not okay to kill someone just because you don't like their genes.
2. Then put the baby for adoption. It's not okay to kill someone because you don't think you'd be a good parent.

If someone comes down the street grabs you, violates you, and hurts you that causes permanent and scarring emotional damage.then imagine living in a state of perpetual self loathing at the fetus in your stomach for 9 months, plus lost work and wages that could bankrupt a poor person. That is enough to drive someone insane and ruin their life.

Dyakovo wrote:

Umbagar wrote:At some point a fetus is still a child.

Wrong. If it is a fetus it isn't a child. If it is a child it is no longer a fetus.

Arilando wrote:

Nulono wrote:If I killed you painlessly, would that be okay? What if I killed someone with congenital insensitivity to pain?

It would not be okay if i said i did not want to be killed


2. The infant can't be adopted until you find an adoptive family. The fetus can't be adopted until birth. What does being able to be adopted have to do with the right to not be killed?

A fetus is a burden on the mother, a adopted infant is not

Abortion has a 100% chance of death.

Please explain furher.

Wesibaden wrote:

Nulono wrote:I'm leaning towards it being a hoax. There's no reason for them to get a 3D ultrasound or go into so much detail over the development of a child they may abort. The language they use is clearly acknowledging "Wiggles" as a member of the family.

I voted for birth just to be safe, though.

Also, the 4chan raid was inevitable.

4chan are a bunch of nerds.................... But anyways i won't vote because its up to them to decide not strangers.


And enough with abortions it is the mothers choice so everyone needs to back off.......

Umbagar wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:Wrong. If it is a fetus it isn't a child. If it is a child it is no longer a fetus.

It's a child the same way an egg is a chicken. There's a reason vegetarians only eat non-fertilized eggs.

Arilando wrote:

Umbagar wrote:
At some point a fetus is still a child. I believe that you get 1 choice in whether or not to have a baby, which is when you decide to have sex. Killing off things that will be children on a whim is immoral in my opinion.

So a man can have sex without any consequences, but a women have to give birth (a wery painfull event) to a baby?

Dyakovo wrote:

Nulono wrote:There are multiple definitions of "child". There is "a human being between birth and puberty", as in "Pedophilia is sexual attraction to children.", and there's "a son or daughter, an offspring", as in "My children are 35 and 23 years old.".

And none of them describe a fetus.

Staenwald wrote:There's been another thing like this on recently. Heard about the russian artist who has strapped himself into an electric chair- and people online get to click and zap him. it's supposed to be a test to portray if free will really comes with any internal moral limits. He's not die...but has been zapped afew times, so obviously some people are lacking. Looks like we still need government...even if I do think a libertarian would be better.

Dyakovo wrote:You want to zap him, don't you?

Umbagar wrote:

Arilando wrote:Why are you against having sex for fun? And how is it justified that someone should pay child support if they do not themselves decide what happens to the child support?

Can you point out when I said I'm against having sex for fun? Have you heard of condoms? Very useful objects are they. Child support goes to the woman that they made pregnant to support her and the child.

Fartsniffage wrote:

Staenwald wrote:There's been another thing like this on recently. Heard about the russian artist who has strapped himself into an electric chair- and people online get to click and zap him. it's supposed to be a test to portray if free will really comes with any internal moral limits. He's not die...but has been zapped afew times, so obviously some people are lacking. Looks like we still need government...even if I do think a libertarian would be better.

Got a link?

Nulono wrote:http://tinyurl.com/268athl