Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

 

The state of "being alive" and the state of "consciousness" as we understand humans to possess it are two different things. It's not just existing and responding to stimuli like any amoeba, it's processing the world at a high level, creating and retaining memories, the ability to interpret complex information, form thoughts etc etc.

Why does that matter? A one day old baby isnt "processing the world at a high level". Share with us the memories you created and retained when you were one day old. I cant wait to hear them.  A one day old baby can't "...interpret complex information, form thoughts etc etc."

Edited by Yakuda
Posted
2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No...it's not.

Great argument lmao.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Great argument lmao.

Its sufficient. You've seen the definition...deal with it or don't.

Edited by Nationalist

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

But nobody actually does that and no doctor will perform that procedure, dumbass. You might as well get mad that there's no laws preventing people from growing wings and flying to the f*cking moon.

 

Irrelevant. It's allowed and you have no valid reason to oppose it

 There there is 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/05/dr-warren-hern-abortion-post-roe/674000/

I give you credit for how proud you are of being so stupid and morally depraved. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Why does that matter? A one day old baby isnt "processing the world at a high level". Share with us the memories you created and retained when you were one day old. I cant wait to hear them.  A one day old baby can't "...interpret complex information, form thoughts etc etc."

Lol I like that we got the anti-abortion people saying newborn babies are no different from worms or bugs. ILike if that's so why do you care if they get aborted.

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

It sufficient. 

No it's not.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Lol I like that we got the anti-abortion people saying newborn babies are no different from worms or bugs. ILike if that's so why do you care if they get aborted.

No it's not.

Well by your own words one day old babies cannot do any of the things you claim bestows "personhood" on a human being and therefore entitles them to life. You have no legitimate cause then to oppose infanticide. That makes you a morally deprived animal. That's not my fault. 

Edited by Yakuda
Posted
1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

No it's not.

Sure it is. The question is not "is abortion murder?" because it most certainly is. The question is "can you accept the murder?".

For me...early term and extreme circumstances I can accept. I don't like any of it. But I can accept it.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

We've been over this whole "personhood" thing. By the end of the first trimester, the baby is aware.

But you want to treat babies like a virus. I find that more than a little destestable. I hope your not a father.

I swear to god my little brother was  a virus till he was 23.  If i'd have known i could kill him based on THAT.... 

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Nationalist said:

Sure it is. The question is not "is abortion murder?" because it most certainly is. The question is "can you accept the murder?".

For me...early term and extreme circumstances I can accept. I don't like any of it. But I can accept it.

They do like their euphemisms dont they? Abortion for murder. It's like someone is "unalive" not killed it dead. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

I swear to god my little brother was  a virus till he was 23.  If i'd have known i could kill him based on THAT.... 

Ya I had one o' those too...

  • Thanks 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Irrelevant. It's allowed and you have no valid reason to oppose it

I oppose it because of cases like the one in the OP where busybody religious nutjiobs like you decide you know bette rthan doctors.

Quote

There there is 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/05/dr-warren-hern-abortion-post-roe/674000/

I give you credit for how proud you are of being so stupid and morally depraved. 

What do you think this proves lol. Some abortions occur after 21 weeks and someone has to do them. 

13 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

Well by your own words one day old babies cannot do any of the things you claim bestows "personhood" on a human being and therefore entitles them to life. You have no legitimate cause then to oppose infanticide. That makes you a morally deprived animal. That's not my fault. 

Neither do you, they're just worms to you.

Anyway I've never argued about whether "personhood" or human consciousness entitles someone to life or not.

Edited by Black Dog

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
1 minute ago, Yakuda said:

They do like their euphemisms dont they? Abortion for murder. It's like someone is "unalive" not killed it dead. 

It's a way for them to not face the gruesomeness of the act. They candy-coat it and wrap in a new name. That helps them deal with reality...which is something that consistently alludes Libbies.

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

 

The state of "being alive" and the state of "consciousness" as we understand humans to possess it are two different things. It's not just existing and responding to stimuli like any amoeba, it's processing the world at a high level, creating and retaining memories, the ability to interpret complex information, form thoughts etc etc.

Utterly untrue.  The two are somewhat unrelated.  Which is why we are concerned about AI becomeing ACTUAL intelligence and how we will define their consciousness or when they achieve it, separate from life 

Nor do we attach the two to being human - a person in a coma is not conscious but they're not dead either and they're still a person with rights attached. 

At about 16 months a baby's brain "turns on" and begins to perform tasks. We're not talking about ransom neurons firing, it starts to regulate the heart beat etc. 

Most medical experts define death as when all brain activity stops, and for good reason. Even if the 'body' is alive by artificial means after that the person is considered dead and gone. You can do a heart transplant but not a brain transplant (more's the pity, we could fix you permanenty :) ) 

So if 'humanity' ends when the brain no longer functions at all then it is logical to say that it starts when the brain turns on. More than anything our brains define us as being a human being. It is a logical and reasonable and legally defensible answer to the question of when someone starts being a human rather than a lump of flesh

So, back it off a little bit to make sure that we're not catching any fast Developers then somewhere in the 12 to 14 week range would make sense as a date after which no abortions should take place.

 

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I oppose it because of cases like the one in the OP where busybody religious nutjiobs like you decide you know bette rthan doctors.

What do you think this proves lol. Some abortions occur after 21 weeks and someone has to do them. 

Neither do you, they're just worms to you.

No they aren't just worms but even if I actually thought that I still wouldn't want them killed. You on the other hand are the one that has decided they don't meet some arbitrary criteria for "personhood" so you can kill them. This crap you have convinced yourself of is just so you can feel better about yourself for killing babies. You have to create this elaborate ruse for yourself because deep down you know its evil to kill the most innocent people on the planet. 

Edited by Yakuda
Posted
2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Utterly untrue.  The two are somewhat unrelated.  Which is why we are concerned about AI becomeing ACTUAL intelligence and how we will define their consciousness or when they achieve it, separate from life 

Me: "The state of life and the state of consciousness are not the same thing"

You: "That's not true, they're unrelated!"

Just arguing to argue, no thought involved.

Quote

So if 'humanity' ends when the brain no longer functions at all then it is logical to say that it starts when the brain turns on. More than anything our brains define us as being a human being. It is a logical and reasonable and legally defensible answer to the question of when someone starts being a human rather than a lump of flesh

Not really, because then any creature with high level brain functions would be considered on the same level as a human, which would exclude you of course.

Quote

So, back it off a little bit to make sure that we're not catching any fast Developers then somewhere in the 12 to 14 week range would make sense as a date after which no abortions should take place.

96% of abortions occur before 16 week mark, the system regulates itself and no big government interference is required.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
46 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Then put a sock on it and don't get pregnant. Simple as that.

Now...I think we all agree on first trimester abortion and on extreme cases. And indeed that's how most states...and through Europe...deal with it.

So deal with it.

Nice try fck face.

Sex--even consenting sex--is not a consent to simply endure whatever unwelcome consequences come from that act. These two posts together illustrate that pretty clearly.

If something you don't want to happen ends up happening, you fix it. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No they aren't just worms but even if I actually thought that I still wouldn't want them killed. You on the other hand are the one that has decided they don't meet some arbitrary criteria for "personhood" so you can kill them.

I've never said anything of the sort. You're conflating two separate arguments.

Quote

This crap you have convinced yourself of is just so you can feel better about yourself for killing babies. You have to create this elaborate ruse for yourself because deep down you know its evil to kill the most innocent people on the planet. 

No I don't really care about the personhood thing I just think abortion should be legal in cases where women are pregnant and don't want to be anymore.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

More than anything our brains define us as being a human being.

You're not human o_O

*backs away slowly*

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Sex--even consenting sex--is not a consent to simply endure whatever unwelcome consequences come from that act. These two posts together illustrate that pretty clearly.

If something you don't want to happen ends up happening, you fix it. 

You just want to fix it through murder is that it?  In what other areas of life is killing the allowable solution? Can I kill my boss if he fires me? That would definitely be something I don't want to happen that could end up happening. I don't consent to being fired just by taking the job. 

Edited by Yakuda
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I've never said anything of the sort. You're conflating two separate arguments.

No I don't really care about the personhood thing I just think abortion should be legal in cases where women are pregnant and don't want to be anymore.

No here is what you said 

"The state of "being alive" and the state of "consciousness" as we understand humans to possess it are two different things. It's not just existing and responding to stimuli like any amoeba, it's processing the world at a high level, creating and retaining memories, the ability to interpret complex information, form thoughts etc etc."

You clearly state that humans are capable of "...processing the world at a high level, creating and retaining memories, the ability to interpret complex information, form thoughts etc etc."  One day old babies can't do any of that so they are not human, persons or whatever term suits your narrative in the moment.and therefore cane be "aborted". 

So you're ok if a woman is 8.5 months pregnant and has an abortion because she doesn't want to be pregnant any more? I can appreciate you're at least on the verge of being honest about this. Let's see if you can pull the trigger. Seems fitting given the topic. 

Edited by Yakuda
Posted
12 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

No here is what you said 

You clearly state that humans are capable of "...processing the world at a high level, creating and retaining memories, the ability to interpret complex information, form thoughts etc etc."  One day old babies can't do any of that so they are not human, persons or whatever term suits your narrative in the moment.and therefore cane be "aborted". 

Infants as young as two months old can detect faces and make out scenes, it's possible that young infants can too. It's possible short-term memories form earlier than previously thought as well.

Regardless, I've never argued that the inability to do any of that stuff means one day old babies can be aborted, you're projecting nonsense again.

Quote

So you're ok if a woman is 8.5 months pregnant and has an abortion because she doesn't want to be pregnant any more? I can appreciate you're at least on the verge of being honest about this. Let's see if you can pull the trigger. Seems fitting given the topic. 

Sure, but that almost never happens without some extenuating circumstance such as a medical problem or the rare case where someone might not even know they're pregnant. The idea that we should have a law preventing something that essentially doesn't happen and will only serve to create barriers to accessing care for people who actually need it is insane to me.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
3 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Infants as young as two months old can detect faces and make out scenes, it's possible that young infants can too. It's possible short-term memories form earlier than previously thought as well.

Regardless, I've never argued that the inability to do any of that stuff means one day old babies can be aborted, you're projecting nonsense again.

Sure, but that almost never happens without some extenuating circumstance such as a medical problem or the rare case where someone might not even know they're pregnant. The idea that we should have a law preventing something that essentially doesn't happen and will only serve to create barriers to accessing care for people who actually need it is insane to me.

You have no legitimate reason to oppose infanticide based on the criteria you laid out for us. I like how you mention a 2 month old baby and ignore the point at a one day old can't do any of the thing in your criteria. 

It not relevant what almost never happens the fact is it can happen and you're jumping through hoops to avoid confirming what we already know about you people. It must kill you to have to pretend you care about babies being killed up to the moment of birth and even after based on your own words. You can't even be intellectually honest with yourself 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Yakuda said:

You have no legitimate reason to oppose infanticide based on the criteria you laid out for us. I like how you mention a 2 month old baby and ignore the point at a one day old can't do any of the thing in your criteria. 

You're pretty dumb, huh?

"Infants as young as two months old can detect faces and make out scenes, it's possible that young infants can too."

Quote

It not relevant what almost never happens the fact is it can happen and you're jumping through hoops to avoid confirming what we already know about you people.

If you're talking about passing a law to stop something from happening, whether or not it happens is actually quite relevant.

Quote

It must kill you to have to pretend you care about babies being killed up to the moment of birth and even after based on your own words. You can't even be intellectually honest with yourself 

I don't care about babies being aborted up to the moment of birth and even after in the same way I don't care if Bigfoot's kids can afford to go to college in today's economy. It's not a real problem.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Posted
1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

You're pretty dumb, huh?

"Infants as young as two months old can detect faces and make out scenes, it's possible that young infants can too."

If you're talking about passing a law to stop something from happening, whether or not it happens is actually quite relevant.

I don't care about babies being aborted up to the moment of birth and even after in the same way I don't care if Bigfoot's kids can afford to go to college in today's economy. It's not a real problem.

So you are ok with babies being killed up to and after birth. Grow some f'ing testicles and answer the question but you won't because you have more morals or  integrity. 

Posted
Just now, Yakuda said:

So you are ok with babies being killed up to and after birth. Grow some f'ing testicles and answer the question but you won't because you have more morals or  integrity. 

Yes in the same way I'm ok with Bella choosing Edward over Jake in the Twilight Saga lmao. Because they're both fictional things you see.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,847
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Justathought
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Radiorum went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Reg Volk earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • Radiorum went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • SkyHigh went up a rank
      Mentor
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Posting Machine
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...