This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
not you MyTie- this is for a pro-choice or undecided personI see where this is going, though. Do I get points for insight?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
not you MyTie- this is for a pro-choice or undecided personI see where this is going, though. Do I get points for insight?
Totally.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
@MyTie ^ Look above. Jew is a person, as long as he/she can survive without his mother, before that it is a part of her.
An infant cannot survive without mom, so I guess it is mother's choice to kill? Are people with pacemakers no longer human? Are people on life support not people?
You know, I'm actually pretty sick of this debate. Same old stuff, same old replies. Flimsy reasons to kill unborn vs logical reasoning why they should not be killed. Over and over and over. I haven't heard anything new in years.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Boron-
Ok- so my response to question 2 was beyond your ability to understand- we'll just skip that, then.
I believe my standard had two parts- that it had Human DNA AND that it would grow to live a full human life. Unless you have photos of a tumor who graduated from high school I suggest that this is a poor comparison to the standard that I used. Perhaps you were also someone who cheated in biology?
In terms of your standards for what is alive, that means that anyone who is under medical care for an injury, if their heart has stopped or their brain function has been damaged, and need artificial assistance to continue to live, should be legal to kill. Even if you know for a fact that in 6-7 months they will have full brain and heart function, as long as it's not functioning now without outside assistance, they're not living humans. Right?
What about one or the other- if someone has full brain function, but needs a pacemaker, can you kill them? Or if they have a working heart, but higher brain function has ceased, can you go in and shoot them in the head?
Also, all mammals and birds have both brains and hearts- but your definition, anyone who kills them is committing murder. Clearly there have to be more qualifications for what is human than just brain and heart function.
Clearly your definition would exclude some people who are currently protected from murder, and include a lot of other life-forms. Did you want to tweak it a bit? It would seem to me, that under our current definition of a living human, human DNA must have something to do with it, and when people's hearts and brains aren't functioning we give them the medical care needed to return them to working order, if we think that they will be able to get to a point where they are functioning again. Would you agree?
Now, lets take your reason it's wrong to kill a 1-year old. So it's ok to kill someone who is dependent on care from you, if it can't get that care from someone else?
By that standard, then, I would propose that you would have to allow women who live in remote areas who did not have access to other people to take care of their children to kill them, right? Or, if someone else cannot relieve you of the burden of the care (i.e.- there are no social services in your country, and no one is willing to take it), then you have the right to kill it?
Also, if a woman is shut in with her child because of, say, a natural disaster, and is the only one who can take care of it for a couple of weeks until someone rescues them, does she have the right to stop caring for it and let it die, since no one else could take care of it at the very moment she wanted to stop? Even if rescuers were going to come and could take the child at a later time, she's under no obligation not to kill it before that happens, if we use your definitions.
And both of those are just reasons when you think you're allowed to kill a child. What makes it wrong in the first place? What is the inherent wrongness in killing someone else's child, for example, who doesn't need you for anything? Or in killing an adult? Why is it wrong to kill a human at all?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- why are those the definitions? Why does that make someone human? What proof do you have? Clearly I'll concede the human DNA, but what about the rest?
Also, why is it wrong to kill a human, but not wrong to kill an animal?
Post by
MyTie
AS for tumor comparison, it was a bit far fetched, but it was to illustrate a point that just human DNA does not cut it, because both you and MyTie keep using it without anything else.
No. I'm not just saying "human DNA". I'm saying "unique human DNA". A tumor has DNA that matches up to the DNA of the parent body. A fetus has DNA that does not. The DNA proves that the unborn being is human, and that the unborn being is unique. Nothing else possesses unique human DNA except unique human beings, and the subordinate parts of those human beings. Not tumors, not anything.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You know what, same thing happened in abortion thread. We are arguing in circles, and going off-topic for this particular thread. I propose we agree to disagree?
Lol. Beautiful, but no. This is not off-topic, either. We are directly discussing a news article linked from CNN, where a person insisted that O'Reily perpetuates bigotry with statements like "50% of Muslims oppress other Muslims", which, may not be 50% but it is a really really huge gigantic problem over there. So now I want to see if this holds up for other religions too, or if, as I suspect, this is just ridiculous political flailing and demonizing.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Are you sure you writing in right thread?
Lol.. I had a hunch I was in the incorrect thread when I couldn't find my post.
As far as dropping the abortion topic: Sure. I'll drop it. I've seen this particular item in this particular discussion to its conclusion several hundred times. It boils down to this:
Pro-Lifer: Here is evidence that the unborn is a living human being.
Pro-Choicer: I just don't believe it is. It doesn't even look like a human.
Just like ALL of the items in this debate boil down. Either that or how I just hate women somewhere deep in my heart.
Post by
asakawa
As an outsider I found
this article
interesting. It's on
Gawker
and professes to have been written by a Fox News employee turned whistle-blower.
In the UK we only hear about Fox News when it's being ludicrous and I'd always assumed that this was just how it goes - only the relatively extreme things would ever make it all the way across the pond so I never really took it to be indicative of the whole but of course did judge the channel based on the sorts of things they allow to be presented in their broadcasts.
I share a guild with several awesome Dutch people and we all found
this video
lots of fun ^_^
edited to use a better, later video from the same Dutch youtuber(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
There was actually a lawsuit filed by a reporter against one of the Fox subsidiaries, which failed to renew her contract after she refused to misrepresent the facts in a story for them. She initially won part of her lawsuit, but Fox won the appeal based on their assertion that they had no legal or regulatory requirement not to falsify information, and so they were allowed to fire her for refusing to do so without being held accountable under the Whistleblower law.
If your corporate lawyers are willing to stand in court and argue that you're allowed to lie, as a news network, how seriously can you be taken?
Source
Post by
Squishalot
No specific article to be linked here, though I know there was a legal case in the past. In general, do you guys think that journalists should be allowed to withhold the source of their tips/information from the public / court system?
(Edit: Post 7,777 - time to go buy a lottery ticket!)(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
If a fetus is a person, then the rest of the facts are not in question and it is definitely murder.
It's technically killing. The state determines the difference between murder and killing/homicide. For instance, the death penalty isn't murder because it's permitted by the state. Abortion in countries where it is permitted is always killing, but never murder.
If you're spiritual, then there is the involvement of a soul which has nothing to do with science, and isn't something that can be proven in adults any more than in fetuses
That's true. Muslims hold that the foetus is ensoulled at 100 days and permit abortion until that point. While the early Church held that a foetus was not ensoulled until 40 days for boys and 80 for girls (IIRC), there was a quote from a saint that stated that attempted abortion should incur the same penalty as attempted murder. Not so much that it destroys life, but that it prevents it: same as with sodomy or prophylaxis.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Gamer- I don't know if I agree that murder has to be defined by the law where the killing takes place, to be defined as murder. For example, many dictators and their military forces have been responsible for ethnic cleansing, killing civilian populations, etc. I would say that regardless of it being legal in the eyes of the government doing it, those things are murder.
I was more making the point that neither side can offer scientific proof of whether a fetus is a "real person" if no one can agree what the definition of that is. For some of us, having human DNA and in the process of growing into a adult human being means that they're human. Others feel that certain developmental criteria have to be met, in terms of neurological or organ development. But as much as we can prove the existence of or lack of the physical traits we attribute humanity to, and can prove whether or not they feel pain or have started thinking yet, we can't prove whether or not this makes the fetus a "person" in the sense that it has a "right" to life, because the "right" of any human to life is based on less tangible ideas about right and wrong. You either believe it does, or you don't.
Post by
Adamsm
There was actually a lawsuit filed by a reporter against one of the Fox subsidiaries, which failed to renew her contract after she refused to misrepresent the facts in a story for them. She initially won part of her lawsuit, but Fox won the appeal based on their assertion that they had no legal or regulatory requirement not to falsify information, and so they were allowed to fire her for refusing to do so without being held accountable under the Whistleblower law.
If your corporate lawyers are willing to stand in court and argue that you're allowed to lie, as a news network, how seriously can you be taken?
Source
That's....yeah, and people wonder why I dislike Faux News....
Post by
gamerunknown
I would say that regardless of it being legal in the eyes of the government doing it, those things are murder.
Well, I certainly agree that killing can be held to a higher moral standard than what the government determines. For example, what the government may term "a delightful excursion", the Hague may call "genocide". I also agree that questions of right and wrong are not scientific. However I disagree that determining whether something is a person or not is the only way to determine whether they have a right to life. It's certainly a consistent one, but so is determining whether something has the right to life based on its capacity to feel pain.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.