... it wouldn't be "murder", since, by definition, it'd be "lawful". So, what you just did was commit a logical fallacy! Instead of talking about what constitutes as "murder" now we're talking about what my subjective opinion would be if the state killed my relatives, which, even if it wasn't a logical fallacy and a legitimate question, there's a clear difference between my 50 year old aunt and a blastocyst. CLEAR DIFFERENCE. (cont.)
As if you actually cared about an honest and open debate when the first reply out of your mouth was a petty quip, "fixed". But fine, I'll entertain this sophistry.
"So if a government decided it was now legal for someone to murder you or your family members, you would be okay with that?"
Of course not, but under the "definition", y'know those sentences you can find in a dictionary describing the MEANINGS of words... (cont.)
@Bluedragon094 So if a government decided it was now legal for someone to murder you or your family members, you would be okay with that? According to your logic here, you would have to be. If it's now lawful, then it must not be murder, right?
Instead of rape pregnancy, imagine a starving person faints on my yard. I didn't ask for this, but now its my responsibility to seek medical attention for this person and provide food and shelter until help arrives or until the person can safely leave. Even if its very inconvenient to me.
6:35 - I've had just about my fill of this. Just because a human being is dependent and is in need of aid does not give you the right to force another human being to come to that dependent human being's aid. What you imply is coercion, a petty, "the ends justify the means!"
How about this, we have doctors surgically install a womb inside you and you can be a surrogate mother if you're so willing to damn other humans to do your bidding?
4:45 - I've never heard someone argue that because the baby is in the womb, therefore it's okay to kill it. Is this some shoddy strawman or just simply low-hanging fruit, because I'm leaning heavily toward the former.
6:05 - The only thing that's ludicrous is you conflating a baby that's a day away from term compared to the LEGAL abortions held in the first trimester.
...if we wheeled in pictures of blastocysts? Which clump of animal cells are the human ones? They don't look like humans at all, this is just a petty word game.
4:28 - Depends on criteria. If you have a gov quota to meet in terms of having a certain number of handicapped employees and you're short, all of a sudden any handicapped applicants become much more valuable compared to the able-bodied ones.
2:55 - Then you surely must be against pulling brain dead people off life support.
3:30 - The unborn aren't afforded no protection. There are limits to when a woman can get an abortion unless her life is in danger. It's not like the baby is due tomorrow and the woman is insisting on the baby being ripped out of her.
3:55 - Oh really? I suppose if we wheeled in pictures of various animal zygotes you'd be able to pick the ones that were CLEARLY human then? How... (cont.)
@Yesica1993 (2)
... it wouldn't be "murder", since, by definition, it'd be "lawful". So, what you just did was commit a logical fallacy! Instead of talking about what constitutes as "murder" now we're talking about what my subjective opinion would be if the state killed my relatives, which, even if it wasn't a logical fallacy and a legitimate question, there's a clear difference between my 50 year old aunt and a blastocyst. CLEAR DIFFERENCE. (cont.)
Bluedragon094 3 weeks ago
@Yesica1993
Ha!
As if you actually cared about an honest and open debate when the first reply out of your mouth was a petty quip, "fixed". But fine, I'll entertain this sophistry.
"So if a government decided it was now legal for someone to murder you or your family members, you would be okay with that?"
Of course not, but under the "definition", y'know those sentences you can find in a dictionary describing the MEANINGS of words... (cont.)
Bluedragon094 3 weeks ago
@Bluedragon094 So if a government decided it was now legal for someone to murder you or your family members, you would be okay with that? According to your logic here, you would have to be. If it's now lawful, then it must not be murder, right?
Yesica1993 3 weeks ago
@Yesica1993
Good thing blastocysts and zygotes being aborted is more than lawful, hence not murder.
Fix'd.
Bluedragon094 3 weeks ago
@Bluedragon094 Just because a human being is dependent and is in need of aid does not give you the right to murder that human being.
There. I fixed it.
Yesica1993 3 weeks ago
Instead of rape pregnancy, imagine a starving person faints on my yard. I didn't ask for this, but now its my responsibility to seek medical attention for this person and provide food and shelter until help arrives or until the person can safely leave. Even if its very inconvenient to me.
DoctorTopper 4 weeks ago
@Bluedragon094 (6)
6:35 - I've had just about my fill of this. Just because a human being is dependent and is in need of aid does not give you the right to force another human being to come to that dependent human being's aid. What you imply is coercion, a petty, "the ends justify the means!"
How about this, we have doctors surgically install a womb inside you and you can be a surrogate mother if you're so willing to damn other humans to do your bidding?
End.
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 (5)
4:45 - I've never heard someone argue that because the baby is in the womb, therefore it's okay to kill it. Is this some shoddy strawman or just simply low-hanging fruit, because I'm leaning heavily toward the former.
6:05 - The only thing that's ludicrous is you conflating a baby that's a day away from term compared to the LEGAL abortions held in the first trimester.
(cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 (4)
...if we wheeled in pictures of blastocysts? Which clump of animal cells are the human ones? They don't look like humans at all, this is just a petty word game.
4:28 - Depends on criteria. If you have a gov quota to meet in terms of having a certain number of handicapped employees and you're short, all of a sudden any handicapped applicants become much more valuable compared to the able-bodied ones.
Value is relative.
(cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago
@Bluedragon094 (3)
2:55 - Then you surely must be against pulling brain dead people off life support.
3:30 - The unborn aren't afforded no protection. There are limits to when a woman can get an abortion unless her life is in danger. It's not like the baby is due tomorrow and the woman is insisting on the baby being ripped out of her.
3:55 - Oh really? I suppose if we wheeled in pictures of various animal zygotes you'd be able to pick the ones that were CLEARLY human then? How... (cont.)
Bluedragon094 1 month ago