Capital Punishment

Wow, just wow. I love the qualifications you put on the feeling pain argument. "Oh crap they do feel pain? Well they have to be aware of that pain."

It really sets up the argument of whether or not murdering a sedated individual by putting them in a garage with a car running is murder. They most likely didn't feel pain.

Or is murder about the ending of a life not the pain you caused the life your ending.

If you agree it is a human life developing in there, then it is murder. Murder is murder, there is no pain factor in murder. This is why defining when it is a human life is important.

And one year olds? For any reason? You have got to be kidding me.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Has to be done by our buddies at the State, but yes infanticide is fine. I believe the status quo works for the 2nd question. If the sense of self is not present but was previously, then your wishes prior to then are valid. If your desire is not known, then your family makes the decision. If you have no family and the state is taking care of you, I assume that they will at some point pull the plug, given that they are not going to shell out those expenses indefinitely. Or do they?, I'm not entirely clear on state protocol in these matters.[/QUOTE]

So as long as the government does it it's alright? What if a government somewhere decides that a certain group of peoples' babies shouldn't live and killed all of the babies? That would be perfectly fine?
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Notice how you haven't answered my question, why is it alright to kill a fetus but not a baby or anybody at any other stage of life?[/QUOTE]

Let's take that in steps:
Why is it ok to kill a fetus?
Whoever said it's ok and just hunky dorry? It is legal to do so for various reasons, wether you believe that is moral or not isn't the issue.

Why is it not ok to kill a baby?
I don't know, ask someone who has pulled the trigger on collateral damage why it isn't ok. It isn't legal to kill people unless you're being paid to do it by our govt for various reasons, wether or not you believe that is moral is not the issue.

Why is not ok to kill anybody at another stage of life?
I believe we have shown that it is ok to kill people in their later stages of life. I mean, look at the original topic, killing people as criminal punishment. It is legal to do so for various reasons, wether you believe that is moral or not isn't the issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='unluckynumber11']If everything goes normally then a Zygote will become a Fetus then a baby. Surely you don't think that a sperm by itself can become a fetus and then a baby? This isn't semantics this a key point in the whole debate, is the Zygote human? Yes quite obviously it is.
I couldn't care less what the law says is or isn't human, the law doesn't have the final word on many things and we shouldn't let the law dictate our morals. If a Zygote is human, and killing humans is wrong, then wouldn't killing Zygotes be wrong? And Sperm isn't a complete human, it is only a piece of it needing the egg to then have all 46 chromosomes and become an embryo.[/QUOTE]

What is the magic that happens when the sperm implants it's head in the egg? Do you believe that all of that genetic information suddenly becomes sentient? Do you care?
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']What if a government somewhere decides that a certain group of peoples' babies shouldn't live and killed all of the babies? That would be perfectly fine?[/QUOTE]
The family has first say, but I suppose in some strange scenario in which the government claimed that all of a certain group of people's babies should die, and there was no dispute from the parties involved, sure. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
 
[quote name='Knoell']"Oh crap they do feel pain? Well they have to be aware of that pain."[/QUOTE]
These two questions are the exact same question. You necessarily have to have an awareness in order to feel pain. And yes, arguments in reality sometimes get complex. They may even have multiple qualifiers.
 
[quote name='camoor']What is the magic that happens when the sperm implants it's head in the egg? Do you believe that all of that genetic information suddenly becomes sentient? Do you care?[/QUOTE]

It becomes an embryo, and has all 46 chromosomes instead of only half, is it that hard to understand?
 
[quote name='nasum']Let's take that in steps:
Why is it ok to kill a fetus?
Whoever said it's ok and just hunky dorry? It is legal to do so for various reasons, wether you believe that is moral or not isn't the issue.

Why is it not ok to kill a baby?
I don't know, ask someone who has pulled the trigger on collateral damage why it isn't ok. It isn't legal to kill people unless you're being paid to do it by our govt for various reasons, wether or not you believe that is moral is not the issue.

Why is not ok to kill anybody at another stage of life?
I believe we have shown that it is ok to kill people in their later stages of life. I mean, look at the original topic, killing people as criminal punishment. It is legal to do so for various reasons, wether you believe that is moral or not isn't the issue.[/QUOTE]
I don't care why it's legal. The legality of the issue shou;d not undermine the morality of it. Otherwise Martin Luther King should have just kept his mouth shut because whether he thinks segregation is moral or not isn't the issue, it's was legal "for various reasons". I'm not going to even remark to your "The government kills people all the time" straw man. Morals shouldn't reflect law, law should reflect morals. Otherwise you end up with Big Brother telling you what to think is moral or not it is or isn't.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']These two questions are the exact same question. You necessarily have to have an awareness in order to feel pain. And yes, arguments in reality sometimes get complex. They may even have multiple qualifiers.[/QUOTE]
What about someone who can't feel pain because of a problem with their nervous system? They are aware of their surroundings but they can't feel pain.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']It becomes an embryo, and has all 46 chromosomes instead of only half, is it that hard to understand?[/QUOTE]

A zygote is not an embryo. If you're going to act smarmy you could at least check your facts.
 
[quote name='camoor']A zygote is not an embryo. If you're going to act smarmy you could at least check your facts.[/QUOTE]
Embryo, Zygote, whatever, the point is there is a fundamental difference between a sperm by itself and when it's joined with the egg. If you can't understand that simple change then you shouldn't even be debating about Zygotes.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Embryo, Zygote, whatever, the point is there is a fundamental difference between a sperm by itself and when it's joined with the egg. If you can't understand that simple change then you shouldn't even be debating about Zygotes.[/QUOTE]

No not 'whatever'. Words have meanings. Facts matter. You were wrong, man up and stop this nonsense about me not knowing the scientific difference between a sperm and a zygote. You either know it's bullshit or you're dumber then I thought.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Embryo, Zygote, whatever, the point is there is a fundamental difference between a sperm by itself and when it's joined with the egg. If you can't understand that simple change then you shouldn't even be debating about Zygotes.[/QUOTE]
Haha someone failed sex-ed.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']These two questions are the exact same question. You necessarily have to have an awareness in order to feel pain. And yes, arguments in reality sometimes get complex. They may even have multiple qualifiers.[/QUOTE]

The fetus developes the receptors to feel pain at 8 weeks. Scientists say the pathways in the brain to receive that pain develop at 24-28 weeks. So regardless the fetus feels and perceives pain before it is born.

Regardless, I am not sure how pain is determining whether or not something is alive to you. Painlessly murdering someone is still murder. So pain is out, and now awareness is in. Yet infants aren't technically aware of themselves yet. You advocate killing them for any reason, yet I am fairly certain a lot of pro choicers would not. So what is their belief then? Half and Half?
 
[quote name='camoor']No not 'whatever'. Words have meanings. Facts matter. You were wrong, man up and stop this nonsense about me not knowing the scientific difference between a sperm and a zygote. You either know it's bullshit or you're dumber then I thought.[/QUOTE]

Sure I was wrong in my word usage. Will you accept the fact that you don't know the difference between a sperm by itself and a sperm conjoined with the egg? You obviously don't otherwise you wouldn't ask what "magical" thing happens from single sperm to zygote. You hypocrite, man up to your own short comings of not knowing something as simple as the difference between 23 chromosomes and 46 chromosomes.
 
[quote name='camoor']No not 'whatever'. Words have meanings. Facts matter. You were wrong, man up and stop this nonsense about me not knowing the scientific difference between a sperm and a zygote. You either know it's bullshit or you're dumber then I thought.[/QUOTE]

Someone should talk. Or do I have to ask what you think is that turning point again? Mr. "philosophical analysis of pregancy's biological process, but I really mean whatever the scientific consensus is right now, because I didn't even know that."

[quote name='camoor']
I believe that the fetus becomes a baby late in the pregnancy. I base this on a philisophical analysis of pregnancy's biological process.
[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Sure I was wrong in my word usage. Will you accept the fact that you don't know the difference between a sperm by itself and a sperm conjoined with the egg? You obviously don't otherwise you wouldn't ask what "magical" thing happens from single sperm to zygote. You hypocrite, man up to your own short comings of not knowing something as simple as the difference between 23 chromosomes and 46 chromosomes.[/QUOTE]

I really love that argument they have.

"What next? Everytime I jack off am I committing genocide? hahaha"
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Sure I was wrong in my word usage. Will you accept the fact that you don't know the difference between a sperm by itself and a sperm conjoined with the egg? You obviously don't otherwise you wouldn't ask what "magical" thing happens from single sperm to zygote. You hypocrite, man up to your own short comings of not knowing something as simple as the difference between 23 chromosomes and 46 chromosomes.[/QUOTE]

Your apology was a start.

And while I am not a doctor, I know all the basics of early human development. There isn't anything that you can throw at me regarding human pregnancy that I won't know, so stop this line of bullshit.

Back to the debate - so you set the bar for personhood at the acquisition of 46 chromosomes? Doesn't that seem arbitrary? What is it about 46 chormosones that makes the newly formed cell worthy of being considered a human being?
 
Wow, you guys finally found something to hook this into your old frames on this issue, then will fully caricature their arguments. Intellectual giants ye are.
 
[quote name='camoor']Your apology was a start.

And while I am not a doctor, I know all the basics of early human development. There isn't anything that you can throw at me regarding human pregnancy that I won't know, so stop this line of bullshit.

Back to the debate - so you set the bar for personhood at the acquisition of 46 chromosomes? Doesn't that seem arbitrary? What is it about 46 chormosones that makes the newly formed cell worthy of being considered a human being?[/QUOTE]

How is that arbitrary? Before the egg and the sperm didn't have 46 by themselves and humans are suppose to have 46, so as well as the fact that they couldn't grow into a fetus and baby without the right conditions (woman's uterus) by themselves, they would be a human when they join together and become one and have 46 chromosomes like a human is suppose to have, not 23. The mere fact that it has 46 chromosomes and those specific 46 chromosomes is what makes it human.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Someone should talk. Or do I have to ask what you think is that turning point again? Mr. "philosophical analysis of pregancy's biological process, but I really mean whatever the scientific consensus is right now, because I didn't even know that."[/QUOTE]

I believe that the following factors should be used to determine the "magic moment": differentiantion from other mammals, stage of biological development, and degree to which the organism is sentient.

The question is complex enough as to require a committee of the top ethicists and scientists in this field to pinpoint the turning point.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Back to the debate - so you set the bar for personhood at the acquisition of 46 chromosomes? Doesn't that seem arbitrary? What is it about 46 chormosones that makes the newly formed cell worthy of being considered a human being?[/QUOTE]

That all definitions of it confirm it as a new individual, not just another cell. Everything needed for it to grow into us is already present in the embryo. It is the earliest developmental stages of human life, and if you are too ignorant to see that then I do not know what to tell you.

Go watch a few abortion videos and tell me that it was just a cell.
 
[quote name='camoor']I believe that the following factors should be used to determine the "magic moment": differentiantion from other mammals, stage of biological development, and degree to which the organism is sentient.

The question is complex enough as to require a committee of the top ethicists and scientists in this field to pinpoint the turning point.[/QUOTE]

Check, Check, and Dr Mario Kart's view.

Edit: Oh and about your committee, wouldn't it be important to stop doing what we are doing until we find out?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Check, Check, and Dr Mario Kart's view.

Edit: Oh and about your committee, wouldn't it be important to stop doing what we are doing until we find out?[/QUOTE]

You can't grasp nuance. Those factors have variance (they aren't black-and-white, yes-or-no conditions)

For example sentience - there is a world of difference between a fully developed human being and an early-stage fetus that has less sentience then Terri Schaivo.
 
[quote name='camoor']You can't grasp nuance. Those factors have variance (they aren't black-and-white, yes-or-no conditions)

For example sentience - there is a world of difference between a fully developed human being and an early-stage fetus that has less sentience then Terri Schaivo.[/QUOTE]

I see you used the one I didn't check off as an example. Care to tell me how an embryo is not certain to be human? How about how the heart, brain, and spinal cord start developing at 3 weeks after conception? Not enough biological development? How about the second trimester? http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fetal-development/PR00113

Quite a bit of biological development there.

Im done for today, have to get a nap in before work. You still haven't answered the question of if you admittedly think we do not know the sentience of the fetus then why are we still killing them?
 
For all his anger over it, you'd think unlucky number 11 was aborted or something...

Well, if you want to play the morality and law game, then you've already proven how far off base you can be. My morality is completely different than yours and neither one is better. We may think of each other as having some rather dispicable viewpoints, but there's no reason that we can't have our own. That's one of those laws. For law to reflect morality, you'd have to posit that slavery was moral prior to the civil war. Well that's tenuous at best...

If you're so against abortion, don't have one, or don't have your lady have one or reduce your fiber intake if you're a gay man. But what gives you the authority to say that your different morality is somehow better and should therefore be the law? That's what they call a dick move.
 
[quote name='nasum']But what gives you the authority to say that your different morality is somehow better...[/QUOTE]
Strangely enough, there is a basis on which to claim that a system of morality is actually better - and that is science. Questions about morality are questions about things as they operate in reality, and these are questions that science can answer. So if the question is, Is it the right thing to do to hit a child in school (corporal punishment). One approach is that it doesnt actually work. Therefore, you dont get to hide behind culture or religion or whathaveyou and still do it.

I know its conventional wisdom that science has no bearing on how things SHOULD be, but I would say that scientific inquiries work very well in determining how one moves along the spectrum of suffering/not suffering (i.e. the good life).
 
[quote name='Knoell']I see you used the one I didn't check off as an example. Care to tell me how an embryo is not certain to be human?[/QUOTE]


When it's aborted. Hahahahahaha.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Strangely enough, there is a basis on which to claim that a system of morality is actually better - and that is science. Questions about morality are questions about things as they operate in reality, and these are questions that science can answer. So if the question is, Is it the right thing to do to hit a child in school (corporal punishment). One approach is that it doesnt actually work. Therefore, you dont get to hide behind culture or religion or whathaveyou and still do it.

I know its conventional wisdom that science has no bearing on how things SHOULD be, but I would say that scientific inquiries work very well in determining how one moves along the spectrum of suffering/not suffering (i.e. the good life).[/QUOTE]

I don't know about that. I don't believe that the best moral decision is always the most expedient. To me there is an intrinsic value to an individual's rights, a value that cannot be trumped by a simple pain/pleasure evaluation.

For example - free speech. I think we can all agree that there are certain messages which are vexing for a majority of the poplace, however that does not mean that those who voice these messages should be silenced.
 
[quote name='nasum']For all his anger over it, you'd think unlucky number 11 was aborted or something...

Well, if you want to play the morality and law game, then you've already proven how far off base you can be. My morality is completely different than yours and neither one is better. We may think of each other as having some rather dispicable viewpoints, but there's no reason that we can't have our own. That's one of those laws. For law to reflect morality, you'd have to posit that slavery was moral prior to the civil war. Well that's tenuous at best...

If you're so against abortion, don't have one, or don't have your lady have one or reduce your fiber intake if you're a gay man. But what gives you the authority to say that your different morality is somehow better and should therefore be the law? That's what they call a dick move.[/QUOTE]Is it not right to be angry over the killings of those who cannot defend or speak for themselves by those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions? I see that you believe in relative morality, which really isn't surprising, a lot of people pay lip service to it these days. Let's try this, if you're so against not having abortions, don't have sex with someone if you don't want to have a baby/start a family, letting someone's irresponsibility lead to the death of someone else is what they call a "dick move". What gives you the authority to say that abortion is alright?
 
I didnt intend to suggest that concerns for efficiency or democracy or the simple pleasure/pain narrative should dictate values, though looking back at the statement I can see that interpretation. The argument that science should inform our values is a very complex one with an unfortunate amount of ill defined variables. Consider it analogous to defining good or bad health. We know there is a spectrum but defining particular points becomes a nebulous exercise. In the same way, we know that there is a spectrum of having a bad life, and a good life. Every facet of these lives can be broken down into things that can be measured, whether its on the macro level like economic statistics or on the micro at the level of states of the brain, which necessarily reflect facets of our internal well being.

Maybe spectrum is the wrong word, because most people think of a linear progression where (a) is better than (b) which is better than (c) and so on. It might be more like an elevation chart of a mountain range, with different but equal peaks and valleys. Por ejemplo (taking this from a book now), there may be very different ways to raise happy, successful children. However, these differences must be reflected in facts about the brain. These are things that we can therefore understand through scientific inquiry.

I happened to find the introduction to the book/meme I'm peddling here.

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values - Sam Harris
 
[quote name='nasum']For all his anger over it, you'd think unlucky number 11 was aborted or something...

Well, if you want to play the morality and law game, then you've already proven how far off base you can be. My morality is completely different than yours and neither one is better. We may think of each other as having some rather dispicable viewpoints, but there's no reason that we can't have our own. That's one of those laws. For law to reflect morality, you'd have to posit that slavery was moral prior to the civil war. Well that's tenuous at best...

If you're so against abortion, don't have one, or don't have your lady have one or reduce your fiber intake if you're a gay man. But what gives you the authority to say that your different morality is somehow better and should therefore be the law? That's what they call a dick move.[/QUOTE]

Male child support

Racism

Religious Intolerance

Need I go on? If you really believed this, you would not care one bit about these things. fuck them, if they think its moral to do these things then good for them, but I can individually decide to not be racist, pay child support, and be tolerant of other religions. Amiright?

But we all know how much you all LOVE getting involved in such things (maybe not male child support so much) and criticizing the suspects, making laws against them, and publicly humiliating the people who do them.

Who are you to say that their moral beliefs aren't good enough?

Such hypocrisy.

I would hope you would criticize deadbeat fathers who won't support their children, racists who discriminate, and people who aren't tolerant of other religions, and would attempt to protect the victims.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Surprise, surprise another dodge.[/QUOTE]

Lighten up Sally. You asked a question I answered. It's not my fault that you can't explain your point of view.
 
[quote name='camoor']Lighten up Sally. You asked a question I answered. It's not my fault that you can't explain your point of view.[/QUOTE]

Wow. I ask you a question that directly reflects what you said, you dodge it, and I can't explain my point of view? Read this.

[quote name='Camoor']
No not 'whatever'. Words have meanings. Facts matter. You were wrong, man up. You either know it's bullshit or you're dumber then I thought.
[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Knoell']Wow. I ask you a question that directly reflects what you said, you dodge it, and I can't explain my point of view? Read this.[/QUOTE]

You never did justify your opinion on the matter. Yet I have, several times.

Try again. I'm sure the results will be something on the lines of:



 
1. Evidence of the biological process of the fetus
2. Evidence of the the fetus or embryo having everything they need to develop into mature humans. (different from mammals)
3. Showing your hypocrisy. Your definitions of life put you in direct contradiction with your belief that 2nd trimester abortions should be legal. I think it is pretty reasonable to assume then that point of life does not matter to you in your view on abortion. Yet you consistantly use it.

Two of those things are directly related to your three conditions of life.

It is the definition of debating to look at your views, and ask questions. The fact that you cannot answer them says something.
 
[quote name='camoor']You never did justify your opinion on the matter. Yet I have, several times.

[/QUOTE]

Get used to saying that.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Is it not right to be angry over the killings of those who cannot defend or speak for themselves by those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions? I see that you believe in relative morality, which really isn't surprising, a lot of people pay lip service to it these days. Let's try this, if you're so against not having abortions, don't have sex with someone if you don't want to have a baby/start a family, letting someone's irresponsibility lead to the death of someone else is what they call a "dick move". What gives you the authority to say that abortion is alright?[/QUOTE]

I use birth control so I can shag all I'd like without worry of pregnancy.
Also, I'm not running around saying abortions for all carrying a hanger and a vacuum. I'm saying that people should have the right to do what they will.
As I said before and I will always say. Abortion is a private issue that shouldn't have anything to do with politics or law as it only serves to be a "moral" rallying point for the goofy bible kids. No one is forcing anyone to have abortions against their will. If you want to say that the fetus is being aborted against it's will, I'll believe that when you have a conversation with one that says "nah, fuck that shit, I want to grow up ion poverty or have to deal with the emotional turmoil or adoption/orphange" and have some proof of that.
I'm not asking for the authority to say that abortion is ok for everyone. I'm demanding the right/authority to say that it is ok for me and my partner if that's what we decide to do.
 
[quote name='Knoell']1. Evidence of the biological process of the fetus
2. Evidence of the the fetus or embryo having everything they need to develop into mature humans. (different from mammals)
3. Showing your hypocrisy. Your definitions of life put you in direct contradiction with your belief that 2nd trimester abortions should be legal. I think it is pretty reasonable to assume then that point of life does not matter to you in your view on abortion. Yet you consistantly use it.

Two of those things are directly related to your three conditions of life.

It is the definition of debating to look at your views, and ask questions. The fact that you cannot answer them says something.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, so you pretty much posted like I predicted.

And how can I be hypocritical when I fully disclosed that I am not qualified to set the turning point? Are you angry because I defer to scientists and philosophers instead of priests and shamans? Do you understand the definition of hypocrisy?

[quote name='Msut77']Get used to saying that.[/QUOTE]

I think you're the smartest one in this thread for not even entering the debate.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah, so you pretty much posted like I predicted.

And how can I be hypocritical when I fully disclosed that I am not qualified to set the turning point? Are you angry because I defer to scientists and philosophers instead of priests and shamans? Do you understand the definition of hypocrisy?



I think you're the smartest one in this thread for not even entering the debate.[/QUOTE]

My god, you are ridiculous.

Name one god damn thing that I have said that falls back on priests and shamans or GTFO.
 
[quote name='Knoell']My god, you are ridiculous.

Name one god damn thing that I have said that falls back on priests and shamans or GTFO.[/QUOTE]

Lay your cards on the table - are you a devout Christian or did I totally miss the mark on that one?
 
[quote name='nasum']I use birth control so I can shag all I'd like without worry of pregnancy.
Also, I'm not running around saying abortions for all carrying a hanger and a vacuum. I'm saying that people should have the right to do what they will.
As I said before and I will always say. Abortion is a private issue that shouldn't have anything to do with politics or law as it only serves to be a "moral" rallying point for the goofy bible kids. No one is forcing anyone to have abortions against their will. If you want to say that the fetus is being aborted against it's will, I'll believe that when you have a conversation with one that says "nah, fuck that shit, I want to grow up ion poverty or have to deal with the emotional turmoil or adoption/orphange" and have some proof of that.
I'm not asking for the authority to say that abortion is ok for everyone. I'm demanding the right/authority to say that it is ok for me and my partner if that's what we decide to do.[/QUOTE]

The primary purpose of sex is to make babies. If someone doesn't use protection and they end up pregnant then whose fault is that? Certainly not the offspring that was just made so why punish it by killing it? It shouldn't be anyone's decision to kill it. It's such a shame these days that it's morally acceptable to kill another, especially one that can't speak or defend itself. You say that killing it is morally acceptable because otherwise it will become poor in the future and live in an orphanage? So using that logic we should just kill all the poor, the mentally disabled and the diseased, because hey, we need to put them out of their misery, doesn't matter what they think because we know what's best for them. The point is that abortion shouldn't be an option on the grounds that it is killing someone and therefore immoral, if you can't understand that then you should leave the debate. If you're having unprotected sex and you make a baby no one should be able to kill it. Suppose that I am playing baseball with someone and we break a window, the person who owned the place where the window was broken demands for the payment of the broken window, but then I say "I'm only here to play baseball, not to pay for broken windows". You can't have an action and not take responsibility for the results. You have sex, you/your partner gets pregnant, guess what? You are now responsible for the raising of the child. Don't like it? Then don't have unprotected sex, it's really that simple but I guess that would be too easy.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']The primary purpose of sex is to make babies. If someone doesn't use protection and they end up pregnant then whose fault is that? Certainly not the offspring that was just made so why punish it by killing it? It shouldn't be anyone's decision to kill it. It's such a shame these days that it's morally acceptable to kill another, especially one that can't speak or defend itself. You say that killing it is morally acceptable because otherwise it will become poor in the future and live in an orphanage? So using that logic we should just kill all the poor, the mentally disabled and the diseased, because hey, we need to put them out of their misery, doesn't matter what they think because we know what's best for them. The point is that abortion shouldn't be an option on the grounds that it is killing someone and therefore immoral, if you can't understand that then you should leave the debate. If you're having unprotected sex and you make a baby no one should be able to kill it. Suppose that I am playing baseball with someone and we break a window, the person who owned the place where the window was broken demands for the payment of the broken window, but then I say "I'm only here to play baseball, not to pay for broken windows". You can't have an action and not take responsibility for the results. You have sex, you/your partner gets pregnant, guess what? You are now responsible for the raising of the child. Don't like it? Then don't have unprotected sex, it's really that simple but I guess that would be too easy.[/QUOTE]

You forgot the part about forcing the unwed mother to wear a scarlet letter.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']The primary purpose of sex is to make babies. If someone doesn't use protection and they end up pregnant then whose fault is that? Certainly not the offspring that was just made so why punish it by killing it? It shouldn't be anyone's decision to kill it. It's such a shame these days that it's morally acceptable to kill another, especially one that can't speak or defend itself. You say that killing it is morally acceptable because otherwise it will become poor in the future and live in an orphanage? So using that logic we should just kill all the poor, the mentally disabled and the diseased, because hey, we need to put them out of their misery, doesn't matter what they think because we know what's best for them. The point is that abortion shouldn't be an option on the grounds that it is killing someone and therefore immoral, if you can't understand that then you should leave the debate. If you're having unprotected sex and you make a baby no one should be able to kill it. Suppose that I am playing baseball with someone and we break a window, the person who owned the place where the window was broken demands for the payment of the broken window, but then I say "I'm only here to play baseball, not to pay for broken windows". You can't have an action and not take responsibility for the results. You have sex, you/your partner gets pregnant, guess what? You are now responsible for the raising of the child. Don't like it? Then don't have unprotected sex, it's really that simple but I guess that would be too easy.[/QUOTE]
Unless you're a devout Jain you really have no room to talk when it comes to killing things. You do it all the time without even thinking about it. But then we're not talking about life in general, are we?
 
[quote name='Clak']Unless you're a devout Jain you really have no room to talk when it comes to killing things. You do it all the time without even thinking about it. But then we're not talking about life in general, are we?[/QUOTE]

Very good, you have noticed that we are not talking about life in general, we are talking about Human life, something many people forget.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Very good, you have noticed that we are not talking about life in general, we are talking about Human life, something many people forget.[/QUOTE]

So in your view, did the United States supreme court forget it? Is your patronizing tone insinuating that you are smarter then the US supreme court?
 
[quote name='camoor']So in your view, did the United States supreme court forget it? Is your patronizing tone insinuating that you are smarter then the US supreme court?[/QUOTE]Is the SCOTUS the end all be all when it comes to issues like these? Was that the case for Segregation? Jim Crow laws? Slavery? Did the people that believe that segregation was wrong when the SCOTUS thought it was right think they were smarter than the SCOTUS? I would think so, the SCOTUS aren't some magical super-humans, they are regular people who, shockingly, can be wrong too.
 
[quote name='unluckynumber11']Is the SCOTUS the end all be all when it comes to issues like these? Was that the case for Segregation? Jim Crow laws? Slavery? Did the people that believe that segregation was wrong when the SCOTUS thought it was right think they were smarter than the SCOTUS? I would think so, the SCOTUS aren't some magical super-humans, they are regular people who, shockingly, can be wrong too.[/QUOTE]

On social issues progressives always win and conservatives always lose. We won on the issue you cited, we won on suffrage, we're currently winning on abortion, barring a fascist regime taking over we'll win on every single issue in the culture wars today. It's just a matter of time.

Back to the discussion - forget the final decision just answer the question - do you believe that the supreme court forgot that their ruling would be used to determine what is and isn't a human life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top