|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 9, 2019 20:42:17 GMT
You do realize words generally have descriptive qualities, right? If I were to show you a picture of a fetus and a full developed human and asked you "Point at the person", even if you tried to make the argument "Well, how are you defining person?" there's a decent chance you're going to have a Pavalovian reflex and point at the developed human, because that's how language works, it's ingrained into our consciousness depending on it's connotations and usage from societal standards. When we use certain words to describe something, we typically generally do so because it fit certain criteria/parameters often agreed upon by society. It's the reason no on calls a tadpole a "frog", frog has entirely different features/connotations.
You don't have to convince me, I'm just explaining how things really are. Go to court and make your case. Huh? I was responding to Gameboy's post.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Dec 9, 2019 21:04:58 GMT
suspended above the throne
in the eighteenth century ones eternal destiny was qualified by the enormous size of the portraits you could afford to have suspended above the throne you attended.
now as it was in the beginning one still insists on winning but need only possess the beginning of your wife straddling a jet cockpit barely dressed as if she could possess the wherewithal to do anything not revolving around male's balls.
sjw 12/09/19 inspired at this very moment in time by our current first lady of the united states.
from the 'bizarro series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Dec 9, 2019 23:22:46 GMT
I was gonna vote "No".
Fuck evil people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2019 3:21:42 GMT
Matter to whom?
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 10, 2019 11:49:12 GMT
In a perfect world yes, but the world is not perfect and even if people don`t want to admit it all life does not matter.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 10, 2019 12:53:02 GMT
How is a fetus not an individual human entity? The dictionary does not say a mouse is a squirrel. But it says a human being is a person.
The assertion that a fetus (also an embryo and even a zygote) is a person is an argument used by the people who OPPOSE abortion rights, not support them. That's been a fixed part of the landscape of this debate for decades. “Personhood” laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception...“Personhood” laws have been a favorite tactic of anti-choice activists for decades
rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law-topic/personhood/
So, your own position is confusing, to say the least. If you support abortion rights, then we are in agreement. But how you come to support abortion rights is mysterious if you also contend that a fetus is a person. "Persons" are regarded as having rights, the first one being a right to life. Do you support abortion rights because you don't think persons have a right to life anyway? Or is there some other way that you reconcile your two typically contradictory positions?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 10, 2019 16:25:36 GMT
How is a fetus not an individual human entity? The dictionary does not say a mouse is a squirrel. But it says a human being is a person.
The assertion that a fetus (also an embryo and even a zygote) is a person is an argument used by the people who OPPOSE abortion rights, not support them. That's been a fixed part of the landscape of this debate for decades. “Personhood” laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception...“Personhood” laws have been a favorite tactic of anti-choice activists for decades
rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law-topic/personhood/
So, your own position is confusing, to say the least. If you support abortion rights, then we are in agreement. But how you come to support abortion rights is mysterious if you also contend that a fetus is a person. "Persons" are regarded as having rights, the first one being a right to life. Do you support abortion rights because you don't think persons have a right to life anyway? Or is there some other way that you reconcile your two typically contradictory positions?
Nobody should have the choice to kill another innocent human being. Fuck all that “personhood” semantic bs!.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 10, 2019 17:27:25 GMT
The assertion that a fetus (also an embryo and even a zygote) is a person is an argument used by the people who OPPOSE abortion rights, not support them. That's been a fixed part of the landscape of this debate for decades. “Personhood” laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception...“Personhood” laws have been a favorite tactic of anti-choice activists for decades
rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law-topic/personhood/
So, your own position is confusing, to say the least. If you support abortion rights, then we are in agreement. But how you come to support abortion rights is mysterious if you also contend that a fetus is a person. "Persons" are regarded as having rights, the first one being a right to life. Do you support abortion rights because you don't think persons have a right to life anyway? Or is there some other way that you reconcile your two typically contradictory positions?
Fuck all that “personhood” semantic bs!. Tell that to all the "pro-life" legislators and organizations who have labored for decades to pass "personhood" statutes and constitutional amendments. I'm sure they'll be very interested in your well informed view that they have all been just engaging in "semantic bs". Or on the other hand, begin with trying to learn something about the subject. Here's an easy place to start: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Dec 10, 2019 18:17:06 GMT
across my america
from one side of america to another i saw a mother a mother like no other.
from two ends meeting in the middle i could whittle tunes to relight the moons there in your eyes.
for my america sighs as it cries to be better to weather storms that hold us all together.
across my america i see a nation of whether we can or can't be open across my america tokens of hope reaching across my america teaching.
as we walk together towards the light of reason not over each other across my america lovers. .
sjw 12/10/19 inspired at this very moment in time by crucibles in the dark.
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 11, 2019 11:01:13 GMT
The assertion that a fetus (also an embryo and even a zygote) is a person is an argument used by the people who OPPOSE abortion rights, not support them. That's been a fixed part of the landscape of this debate for decades. “Personhood” laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception...“Personhood” laws have been a favorite tactic of anti-choice activists for decades
rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law-topic/personhood/
So, your own position is confusing, to say the least. If you support abortion rights, then we are in agreement. But how you come to support abortion rights is mysterious if you also contend that a fetus is a person. "Persons" are regarded as having rights, the first one being a right to life. Do you support abortion rights because you don't think persons have a right to life anyway? Or is there some other way that you reconcile your two typically contradictory positions?
I support abortion rights from a libertarian perspective because it would be a form of slavery if the government forced women to carry another developing human being inside her body. I sense a problem with that approach. If the fetus is person, then it has the right to life. But since this person is infringing on the woman's right to bodily autonomy, the government should not force her to carry it. OK, that would be an argument that government should pass no law against a woman performing a self abortion ("This person is infringing on you, so YOU can do what you want, coat hangar, whatever, at your own risk, all very libertarian"). But it's not an argument against laws prohibiting doctors from performing abortions ("Hey doc, that fetal person with a right to life is not infringing on YOU at all. You may not lift a finger to harm that person. We'll arrest you if you do.")
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 11, 2019 11:59:55 GMT
Homo sapiens, our species. The embryo is human and it's an individual with it's own unique DNA. By the Oxford English Dictionary definition a human individual is a person. That doesn't mean abortion should be illegal. It just means women need to be informed before they have an abortion.The embryo can be formed into a "potential" human, which in turn once birthed becomes a human "being". This is the sentient lifeforce that then takes on a different status in the world. It has always been that way. Any definition before that phase is really just reaching and grasping for justification of why a "potential" human being need not be aborted.
Women do not need to be condescend too and a simple definition in the dictionary—which is just a reference for communication and these can bend as well—is not a rational reason to inform them of any psychological or emotional damage they may suffer due to any decision made. It also appears to me, that any negative consequence is mostly projected from external sources, not within themselves, who want to label them murderers or immoral.
BS. The embryo is a living human being with potential from the moment of conception. That is a scientific fact you cannot argue with.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Dec 11, 2019 12:32:07 GMT
BS. The embryo is a living human being with potential from the moment of conception. That is a scientific fact you cannot argue with. You must be having hallucinations. I have never seen an embryo or fetus being walking around.
How convenient of you to cite science, when it suits your distorted agenda.
So now you’re not a human being unless you’re walking around? lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/How convenient of you to undermine science, when it doesn’t suit your deranged politics.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 11, 2019 14:30:48 GMT
The assertion that a fetus (also an embryo and even a zygote) is a person is an argument used by the people who OPPOSE abortion rights, not support them. That's been a fixed part of the landscape of this debate for decades. “Personhood” laws seek to classify fertilized eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses as “persons,” and to grant them full legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, including the right to life from the moment of conception...“Personhood” laws have been a favorite tactic of anti-choice activists for decades
rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law-topic/personhood/
So, your own position is confusing, to say the least. If you support abortion rights, then we are in agreement. But how you come to support abortion rights is mysterious if you also contend that a fetus is a person. "Persons" are regarded as having rights, the first one being a right to life. Do you support abortion rights because you don't think persons have a right to life anyway? Or is there some other way that you reconcile your two typically contradictory positions?
Nobody should have the choice to kill another innocent human being. Fuck all that “personhood” semantic bs!. Cody, another thought for a religious person like yourself who thinks that distinguishing between "human being" and "person" is semantic bs. Is God the Father a human being? I believe the answer is "Of course not". But the Trinity doctrine does call God the Father "the first Person of the Trinity". So it seems that "human being" and "person" are not always interchangeable. Depending on context, sometimes a distinction between the two must be made. That not semantics.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Dec 12, 2019 16:28:12 GMT
You must be having hallucinations. I have never seen an embryo or fetus being walking around.
How convenient of you to cite science, when it suits your distorted agenda.
So now you’re not a human being unless you’re walking around? lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/How convenient of you to undermine science, when it doesn’t suit your deranged politics. ^^triggered.
|
|