Total Posts:148|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hitler did not murder 6 million Jews.

DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:56:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
BECAUSE he passed a law making them 'unpersons'..

SO, abortion is not murder for the exact same reason.

EITHER you agree with Hitler or you call abortion murder.

DISCUSS.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 3:10:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow... This has got to be one of the stupidest things I have read on this site for awhile. It doesn't even warrant a proper response.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 3:17:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 3:10:08 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Wow... This has got to be one of the stupidest things I have read on this site for awhile. It doesn't even warrant a proper response.

The logic is sound..

If you agree with our law that at 14 weeks (or whatever it is now) a 'person' suddenly becomes a person that can be murdered then you must agree that Hitler had the right to unperson 'people' too..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 2:56:43 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
BECAUSE he passed a law making them 'unpersons'..

When the f*ck did Hitler become infallible and incapable of being wrong? Hitler was not correct in believing that jews arent people, and he was also wrong in passing a law to make it so that jews arent people either, so arguing that Hitler didnt kill 6 million jews just because he declared them to not be people is a very idiotic argument to make.

SO, abortion is not murder for the exact same reason.

A late term fetus has just about everything in common with a month old fetus and is in every sense a person. It only becomes an issue as you stretch further and further into the past of the gestation period because the earlier in the pregnancy you go, the less the fetus has person qualities and often cannot be told apart from a chicken fetus.

EITHER you agree with Hitler or you call abortion murder.

Hitler wasnt right and abortion can only be unanimously be called murder when the baby is within days of being born.

DISCUSS.

In my opinion this is the most retarded argument against being pro-choice ever made.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:18:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:09:08 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:56:43 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
BECAUSE he passed a law making them 'unpersons'..

When the f*ck did Hitler become infallible and incapable of being wrong? Hitler was not correct in believing that jews arent people, and he was also wrong in passing a law to make it so that jews arent people either, so arguing that Hitler didnt kill 6 million jews just because he declared them to not be people is a very idiotic argument to make.

He didn't, that's the point..

SO, abortion is not murder for the exact same reason.

A late term fetus has just about everything in common with a month old fetus and is in every sense a person. It only becomes an issue as you stretch further and further into the past of the gestation period because the earlier in the pregnancy you go, the less the fetus has person qualities and often cannot be told apart from a chicken fetus.

That sounds like Hitler calling Jews 'rats'..

EITHER you agree with Hitler or you call abortion murder.

Hitler wasnt right and abortion can only be unanimously be called murder when the baby is within days of being born.

DISCUSS.

In my opinion this is the most retarded argument against being pro-choice ever made.

An emotional outburst masquerading as an argument..

The point, unaddressed, is who gives us the right to decide a persons personhood?
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:19:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 2:56:43 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
BECAUSE he passed a law making them 'unpersons'..

SO, abortion is not murder for the exact same reason.

EITHER you agree with Hitler or you call abortion murder.

DISCUSS.

LOL Never heard that one before. Does that mean I can kill Dogknox and Composer? Is that your point?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:22:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:19:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:56:43 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
BECAUSE he passed a law making them 'unpersons'..

SO, abortion is not murder for the exact same reason.

EITHER you agree with Hitler or you call abortion murder.

DISCUSS.

LOL Never heard that one before. Does that mean I can kill Dogknox and Composer? Is that your point?

If you pass a law unpersoning them, yes.

The point is, we cannot hide behind the law, or why bother with the Nuremberg trials?
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:24:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:22:34 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:19:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:56:43 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
BECAUSE he passed a law making them 'unpersons'..

SO, abortion is not murder for the exact same reason.

EITHER you agree with Hitler or you call abortion murder.

DISCUSS.

LOL Never heard that one before. Does that mean I can kill Dogknox and Composer? Is that your point?

If you pass a law unpersoning them, yes.

The point is, we cannot hide behind the law, or why bother with the Nuremberg trials?

Gee, I will introduce legislation to that effect right after the election. Scotty Douglas is gone, isn't it? I think he is, or I would include him.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:29:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:18:45 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:

The point, unaddressed, is who gives us the right to decide a persons personhood?

That would be scientists since they know more about the personhood of fetuses then just about any half brained bible waving moron who thinks he knows just as much as they do.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:43:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:29:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:18:45 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:

The point, unaddressed, is who gives us the right to decide a persons personhood?

That would be scientists since they know more about the personhood of fetuses then just about any half brained bible waving moron who thinks he knows just as much as they do.

Hitler used 'science' too..

I don't know, God knows, that's the point.

God says we are human from conception..

Why? Because of all that POTENTIAL!

Is it more of a tragedy when a child dies or an adult?

A child, because of all the years they didn't live..
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:44:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:24:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:22:34 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:19:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/5/2012 2:56:43 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
BECAUSE he passed a law making them 'unpersons'..

SO, abortion is not murder for the exact same reason.

EITHER you agree with Hitler or you call abortion murder.

DISCUSS.

LOL Never heard that one before. Does that mean I can kill Dogknox and Composer? Is that your point?

If you pass a law unpersoning them, yes.

The point is, we cannot hide behind the law, or why bother with the Nuremberg trials?

At 11/5/2012 5:24:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
Gee, I will introduce legislation to that effect right after the election. Scotty Douglas is gone, isn't it? I think he is, or I would include him.

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: Your preferred Story book states " Thou shalt not kill " but here we are reading of your latest admissions that you not only ponder those violent actions but actually look for opportunities to literally enact them!

You again confirm you are truly a vicious and violent person and a Story book jebus reject!

No small wonder you won't even attempt to be tested according to your own preferred Story book, LOL!

Your mentor and literal Saviour moi!
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:29:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:18:45 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:

The point, unaddressed, is who gives us the right to decide a persons personhood?

That would be scientists since they know more about the personhood of fetuses then just about any half brained bible waving moron who thinks he knows just as much as they do.

I do agree with you, but I would also add that I think there is at least a chance an all knowing God might know more about the personhood of fetuses than any human, scientist or non-scientist.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:52:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

and if you want to argue that feeling is not a prerequisite for moral significance, then you'd also have to grant trees and rocks their rights to freedom and existence!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:52:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

Right, so people in comas lose their rights?

"Prerequisites of moral significance"? I'm sorry? All humans are valuable.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:52:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:52:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

and if you want to argue that feeling is not a prerequisite for moral significance, then you'd also have to grant trees and rocks their rights to freedom and existence!

No, because I'm not arguing based on "feeling" at all. Trees and rocks are not genetically human, living, and whole.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:54:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

Oh, and fetuses are whole -- they have distinct genetic material (they're not just a "part" of the woman's body, in the same way a parasite is not a "part" of the woman's body). The fetus itself is a whole from the moment it's actualized.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:56:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fetuses, at most points where an abortion would be performed are:

unthinking, unfeeling, lacking in consciousness, and completely dependent on the mother for survival (therefore the mother has a right to control the fate of the potential, but not yet, human being growing in her body).

The Jews Hitler targeted were thinking, feeling, conscious individuals. they could feel pain and suffering, they could love and feel love, and have life interests. The same CANNOT be said of fetuses. They also existed independent of the person who wanted to terminate their lives, unlike with abortion. So Hitler had no business mandating those peoples deaths. Women who get abortions aren't just killing random people. If Hitler had a Jewish fetus inside of him that he didn't plan on having and caring for, maybe he'd be justified in getting an abortion, and definitely if the Jewish fetus had no thoughts or feelings, and therefore nothing to make it immoral to end its life.

The end, argument refuted.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:57:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:46:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:29:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:18:45 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:

The point, unaddressed, is who gives us the right to decide a persons personhood?

That would be scientists since they know more about the personhood of fetuses then just about any half brained bible waving moron who thinks he knows just as much as they do.

I do agree with you, but I would also add that I think there is at least a chance an all knowing God might know more about the personhood of fetuses than any human, scientist or non-scientist.

I agree with that
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:57:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:52:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

Right, so people in comas lose their rights?

"Prerequisites of moral significance"? I'm sorry? All humans are valuable.

You can't kill or harm someone in a coma because he already has a life and already has consummated his rights in the capacity for feeling.

So tell me, why don't rocks have rights?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 5:59:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:57:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:12 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

Right, so people in comas lose their rights?

"Prerequisites of moral significance"? I'm sorry? All humans are valuable.

You can't kill or harm someone in a coma because he already has a life and already has consummated his rights in the capacity for feeling.

So tell me, why don't rocks have rights?

Already has a life? So does the fetus, it is in the biological sense of the word "alive" as it is growing, organised, etc., and there's really no dispute to this.

Once again -- rocks do not have rights because they are not human. Rocks are not genetically human nor are they alive.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:00:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:52:54 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

and if you want to argue that feeling is not a prerequisite for moral significance, then you'd also have to grant trees and rocks their rights to freedom and existence!

No, because I'm not arguing based on "feeling" at all. Trees and rocks are not genetically human, living, and whole.

Okay, then why do animals have rights? ...because they're living? Then why don't bacteria have rights?

Face it, feeling is the greatest predicate of moral significance. Fetuses cannot feel. Therefore they have no moral significance. When you can feel, or have felt before, your rights will be sanctioned before the law. Until then, you are a thing with no such protections.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:00:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:43:35 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:29:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:18:45 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:

The point, unaddressed, is who gives us the right to decide a persons personhood?

That would be scientists since they know more about the personhood of fetuses then just about any half brained bible waving moron who thinks he knows just as much as they do.

Hitler used 'science' too..

Pull your head out of your a**, Hitler used bullsh*t, fear, propoganda, his influence as dictator, literally anything EXCEPT science to declare Jews are not people.

I don't know, God knows, that's the point.

Just because God knows the answer it doesnt mean humans cant learn the answer either.

God says we are human from conception..

According to? (brace for it)

Is it more of a tragedy when a child dies or an adult?

A child, because of all the years they didn't live..
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:00:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 5:56:10 PM, jat93 wrote:
Fetuses, at most points where an abortion would be performed are:

unthinking, unfeeling, lacking in consciousness, and completely dependent on the mother for survival (therefore the mother has a right to control the fate of the potential, but not yet, human being growing in her body).

The Jews Hitler targeted were thinking, feeling, conscious individuals. they could feel pain and suffering, they could love and feel love, and have life interests. The same CANNOT be said of fetuses. They also existed independent of the person who wanted to terminate their lives, unlike with abortion. So Hitler had no business mandating those peoples deaths. Women who get abortions aren't just killing random people. If Hitler had a Jewish fetus inside of him that he didn't plan on having and caring for, maybe he'd be justified in getting an abortion, and definitely if the Jewish fetus had no thoughts or feelings, and therefore nothing to make it immoral to end its life.

The end, argument refuted.

Also, I second Jannah's assertion that this is one of the most patently stupid ideas I have seen discussed on debate.org in quite some time - stunningly, outrageously illogical. No decent human being who can read and knows the most basic of logic (1+1=2 for example) should be able to read your assertion without cringing in either anger or disgust or both. Seriously, your "argument" is indicative of such a deficiency in logic and common sense that I am truly terrified that any grown, non-retarded adult could accept it. Imabench, you know what to do. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find another thread on this website which restores my hope for the human race. It's going to have to be a pretty amazing one, after reading this.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:04:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 6:00:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:54 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

and if you want to argue that feeling is not a prerequisite for moral significance, then you'd also have to grant trees and rocks their rights to freedom and existence!

No, because I'm not arguing based on "feeling" at all. Trees and rocks are not genetically human, living, and whole.

Okay, then why do animals have rights? ...because they're living? Then why don't bacteria have rights?

Face it, feeling is the greatest predicate of moral significance. Fetuses cannot feel. Therefore they have no moral significance. When you can feel, or have felt before, your rights will be sanctioned before the law. Until then, you are a thing with no such protections.

Are you ignoring the "and"? Animals and bacteria are not genetically human. What is required to be human is human genetics, life, and wholeness. This definition includes all humans and excludes all non-humans.

Feeling is not the greatest predicate of moral significance. Please tell me how "feeling," especially when there are conditions where humans are insensitive to feelings such as pain, is required to be morally significant.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:07:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 6:04:32 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 6:00:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:54 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

and if you want to argue that feeling is not a prerequisite for moral significance, then you'd also have to grant trees and rocks their rights to freedom and existence!

No, because I'm not arguing based on "feeling" at all. Trees and rocks are not genetically human, living, and whole.

Okay, then why do animals have rights? ...because they're living? Then why don't bacteria have rights?

Face it, feeling is the greatest predicate of moral significance. Fetuses cannot feel. Therefore they have no moral significance. When you can feel, or have felt before, your rights will be sanctioned before the law. Until then, you are a thing with no such protections.

Are you ignoring the "and"? Animals and bacteria are not genetically human. What is required to be human is human genetics, life, and wholeness. This definition includes all humans and excludes all non-humans.

Feeling is not the greatest predicate of moral significance. Please tell me how "feeling," especially when there are conditions where humans are insensitive to feelings such as pain, is required to be morally significant.

Okay, so you have just admitted that you're against animal rights....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:08:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 6:04:32 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 6:00:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:54 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

and if you want to argue that feeling is not a prerequisite for moral significance, then you'd also have to grant trees and rocks their rights to freedom and existence!

No, because I'm not arguing based on "feeling" at all. Trees and rocks are not genetically human, living, and whole.

Okay, then why do animals have rights? ...because they're living? Then why don't bacteria have rights?

Face it, feeling is the greatest predicate of moral significance. Fetuses cannot feel. Therefore they have no moral significance. When you can feel, or have felt before, your rights will be sanctioned before the law. Until then, you are a thing with no such protections.

Are you ignoring the "and"? Animals and bacteria are not genetically human. What is required to be human is human genetics, life, and wholeness. This definition includes all humans and excludes all non-humans.

Feeling is not the greatest predicate of moral significance. Please tell me how "feeling," especially when there are conditions where humans are insensitive to feelings such as pain, is required to be morally significant.

Also, why does having "felt before" even matter if feeling is required for moral significance? What if they cannot immediately exercise their capacity for feeling in the same way a fetus can't?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:08:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 6:07:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 6:04:32 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 6:00:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:54 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

and if you want to argue that feeling is not a prerequisite for moral significance, then you'd also have to grant trees and rocks their rights to freedom and existence!

No, because I'm not arguing based on "feeling" at all. Trees and rocks are not genetically human, living, and whole.

Okay, then why do animals have rights? ...because they're living? Then why don't bacteria have rights?

Face it, feeling is the greatest predicate of moral significance. Fetuses cannot feel. Therefore they have no moral significance. When you can feel, or have felt before, your rights will be sanctioned before the law. Until then, you are a thing with no such protections.

Are you ignoring the "and"? Animals and bacteria are not genetically human. What is required to be human is human genetics, life, and wholeness. This definition includes all humans and excludes all non-humans.

Feeling is not the greatest predicate of moral significance. Please tell me how "feeling," especially when there are conditions where humans are insensitive to feelings such as pain, is required to be morally significant.

Okay, so you have just admitted that you're against animal rights....

Yes, I am. Is there a problem with that?
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 6:09:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/5/2012 6:08:32 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 6:07:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 6:04:32 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 6:00:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:54 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:52:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:50:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/5/2012 5:43:09 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I think people should read the OP before addressing it. I completely agree with your logic. The law doesn't decide who is a "person," it's a biological reality that the fetus is a living, genetically human, whole, like any of us.

A fetus is not conscious, cannot feel, and cannot think. It is not a whole human being in any sense, and even if I were to concede the semantic distinction and affirm that it was,...it still would lack the prerequisites of moral significance, so your argument fails both ways. :p

and if you want to argue that feeling is not a prerequisite for moral significance, then you'd also have to grant trees and rocks their rights to freedom and existence!

No, because I'm not arguing based on "feeling" at all. Trees and rocks are not genetically human, living, and whole.

Okay, then why do animals have rights? ...because they're living? Then why don't bacteria have rights?

Face it, feeling is the greatest predicate of moral significance. Fetuses cannot feel. Therefore they have no moral significance. When you can feel, or have felt before, your rights will be sanctioned before the law. Until then, you are a thing with no such protections.

Are you ignoring the "and"? Animals and bacteria are not genetically human. What is required to be human is human genetics, life, and wholeness. This definition includes all humans and excludes all non-humans.

Feeling is not the greatest predicate of moral significance. Please tell me how "feeling," especially when there are conditions where humans are insensitive to feelings such as pain, is required to be morally significant.

Okay, so you have just admitted that you're against animal rights....

Yes, I am. Is there a problem with that?

Even if I were for animal rights, that wouldn't change the validity of my argument concerning what a human is and how it is valuable. Perhaps being human is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for gaining rights.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.