Total Posts:86|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Potential person or Actual Person?

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
When does a corporation become an actual person?

When is a business a potential person?

When does a developing human get the same rights as a business?

yeah all of these are rhetorical questions because I just want to point out the sophistry used by some on this forum.. is that "actual person" has nothing to do with humanity of an entity and EVERYTHING to do with legal personage.

It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being, on the bases of being "legal personages"

Making a business that sells toilet paper for profit having more rights to life than a human being in the womb.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being,

It's called democracy.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:07:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being,

It's called democracy.

It's called the killing of human life.

pro-abortion isn;t even the majority opinion. It has been legalized largely through the efforts of politicians funded by pharmaceutical companies. To question abortions legality is being derailed by political executive orders.

Call mass murder by what ever name you want to. It's easy to kill humans when their screams can't be heard.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:42:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:07:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being,

It's called democracy.

It's called the killing of human life.

pro-abortion isn;t even the majority opinion. It has been legalized largely through the efforts of politicians funded by pharmaceutical companies. To question abortions legality is being derailed by political executive orders.

Call mass murder by what ever name you want to. It's easy to kill humans when their screams can't be heard.

Mhyk here's your big chance, get the method of abortion to retain the integrity of the fetus and you take them all home and feed and nurture them.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:29:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:07:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being,

It's called democracy.

It's called the killing of human life.

Mhykiel, stay with me here.

In the last thread you argued that the determination of when a potential person becomes an actual person is an invalid concept because it is arbitrary and subjective. I explained why that is wrong, and rather than respond you created this thread which continues from that point. So here is my response, again.

Children do not have all of the rights we grant to adults. In most cases when they are 17 yeas and 364 days, they are a minor without the right to make many of their own decisions. One day later they are an adult with the right to make their own decisions. Is this not an arbitrary and subjective line?

I'll save you the trouble: Yes. And yet you still accept it as valid. Why? Why do you accept that we as a society can decide arbitrarily by a matter of consensus that a human being can have certain rights at one point but not before, meanwhile reject that very same notion with respect to a fetus?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 2:22:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:29:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:07:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being,

It's called democracy.

It's called the killing of human life.

Mhykiel, stay with me here.

In the last thread you argued that the determination of when a potential person becomes an actual person is an invalid concept because it is arbitrary and subjective. I explained why that is wrong, and rather than respond you created this thread which continues from that point. So here is my response, again.

No stay with me. It is a set of terms created by pro-abortionist to talk as if they are talking about when a biological entity is "human", but it is in fact used as a synonym for "legal person". It is a set of terms with the intent to semantically sway the conversation away from the point of the fetus being human, and to confuse the issue of legal protections.

My contention is that a fetus is not a "potential person". they are human. And the issue of legalizing abortion is the issue of legalizing when killing a human fetus is not murder. ((there is an inconsistency when a pregnant woman can use the car pool lane to get to the abortion clinic, but if she is killed outside the abortion clinic her murderer is charged with double homicide (her and the fetus))

Now when you want to have a discussion about the real topic and stop using sophistry, created terms, created definitions, subjective appeals to emotion of rape, then we could be one step closer to a rational debate.

But i don't see evidence of you being willing to do that.


Children do not have all of the rights we grant to adults. In most cases when they are 17 yeas and 364 days, they are a minor without the right to make many of their own decisions. One day later they are an adult with the right to make their own decisions. Is this not an arbitrary and subjective line?

Correct, but the right to life is generally extended to all humans, including non-citizens.


I'll save you the trouble: Yes. And yet you still accept it as valid. Why? Why do you accept that we as a society can decide arbitrarily by a matter of consensus that a human being can have certain rights at one point but not before, meanwhile reject that very same notion with respect to a fetus?

Because the driving is not a right.

A 10 year old can drive a car on his parents property. The State has elected that to be allowed to drive on public roads a certain age and licensing criteria have to be met. It is not a human right to drive.

Same as why the State can require car insurance. A person does not have to drive.

But the Right to Life, is from the declaration of independence accepted as a basic Human right.

Way to conflate a privileged with a basic human right.

I can't have a reasonable discussion with you. You are incapable of supporting your position with valid equivocations or facts.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:15:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 2:22:20 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:29:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:07:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being,

It's called democracy.

It's called the killing of human life.

Mhykiel, stay with me here.

In the last thread you argued that the determination of when a potential person becomes an actual person is an invalid concept because it is arbitrary and subjective. I explained why that is wrong, and rather than respond you created this thread which continues from that point. So here is my response, again.

No stay with me. It is a set of terms created by pro-abortionist to talk as if they are talking about when a biological entity is "human", but it is in fact used as a synonym for "legal person". It is a set of terms with the intent to semantically sway the conversation away from the point of the fetus being human, and to confuse the issue of legal protections.

Mhykiel, the only side using sophistry and dubious language to make their case is the Pro-Life side.

Your argument is that all fetus's are human, and all human beings have a right to life. This is not an argument, it is question begging. Whether fetuses have a right to life is the entire point of the abortion debate. You have to support your argument, not assert it.

The pro-choice side does not often use the term "human" because this isn't a question of genetics. It is a question of what we value in human beings, and whether a fetus, especially in its earliest of stages posses the qualities we value.

This is why we use the term "person", or as we have been calling it, "actual person". You wouldn't call a seed a tree, and you wouldn't call an egg a chicken. They are not the same thing, just as a puddle of organic material mixed together after two people had sex and a person are not the same thing. Please explain why you feel the former should be granted constitutional rights.

Now when you want to have a discussion about the real topic and stop using sophistry, created terms, created definitions, subjective appeals to emotion of rape, then we could be one step closer to a rational debate.

But i don't see evidence of you being willing to do that.

Please show me where in either of these threads, or any discussion we have ever had for that matter on abortion have I ever appealed to rape.

After you fail to find any examples please rethink why it is that we cannot have a rational debate.

Children do not have all of the rights we grant to adults. In most cases when they are 17 yeas and 364 days, they are a minor without the right to make many of their own decisions. One day later they are an adult with the right to make their own decisions. Is this not an arbitrary and subjective line?

Correct, but the right to life is generally extended to all humans, including non-citizens.


I'll save you the trouble: Yes. And yet you still accept it as valid. Why? Why do you accept that we as a society can decide arbitrarily by a matter of consensus that a human being can have certain rights at one point but not before, meanwhile reject that very same notion with respect to a fetus?

Because the driving is not a right.

A 10 year old can drive a car on his parents property. The State has elected that to be allowed to drive on public roads a certain age and licensing criteria have to be met. It is not a human right to drive.

Same as why the State can require car insurance. A person does not have to drive.

But the Right to Life, is from the declaration of independence accepted as a basic Human right.

Way to conflate a privileged with a basic human right.

I can't have a reasonable discussion with you. You are incapable of supporting your position with valid equivocations or facts.

Please show me where in either of these threads, have I said anything about driving a car. Tell you what, I'll save you the trouble... I haven't said anything about driving. Nor does whether driving is a right have anything whatsoever to do with my point.

You have once again demonstrated why we cannot have a rational debate. You do not pay attention to a single argument I make. You respond to whatever your brain concocts instead of the argument you actually read. You have no interest in attacking my positions, but are rather content with attacking Imaginary Double_R's positions. Start paying attention and then we can continue.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:15:28 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/25/2016 2:22:20 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:29:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:07:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being,

It's called democracy.

It's called the killing of human life.

Mhykiel, stay with me here.

In the last thread you argued that the determination of when a potential person becomes an actual person is an invalid concept because it is arbitrary and subjective. I explained why that is wrong, and rather than respond you created this thread which continues from that point. So here is my response, again.

No stay with me. It is a set of terms created by pro-abortionist to talk as if they are talking about when a biological entity is "human", but it is in fact used as a synonym for "legal person". It is a set of terms with the intent to semantically sway the conversation away from the point of the fetus being human, and to confuse the issue of legal protections.

Mhykiel, the only side using sophistry and dubious language to make their case is the Pro-Life side.

Your argument is that all fetus's are human, and all human beings have a right to life. This is not an argument, it is question begging. Whether fetuses have a right to life is the entire point of the abortion debate. You have to support your argument, not assert it.

Well no I'm saying in a Just society following the principles of Life Liberty and pursuit of Happiness, and the principles the law lays out in prioritizing rights when they conflict each other men we should advocate for human beings having a paramount right to life, and such a right only taken after a perilous process of due process, ie found guilty of harmful actions. In this regard if the life of the mother is in question, like Fallopian tube pregnancies, the ethical decision would be to abort the human fetus to preserve one life instead of losing two. Or in the case of a murder outside rehabilitation.


The pro-choice side does not often use the term "human" because this isn't a question of genetics. It is a question of what we value in human beings, and whether a fetus, especially in its earliest of stages posses the qualities we value.

well finally you are being honest. You think convenience of the mother is paramount to human life.

And yet what a fallacious argument. You think that is a sound ethical principle? With that logic we can euthanize the elderly who no linger give us the "value" you want from a human.

I don't see people in terms of how valuable they are.

I see a human life put into a position through no fault of their own and deserving of the protection of the law. Not only because that would be in accordance with Justice and ethical treatment of human beings... but also because abortion brings death to a culture.


This is why we use the term "person", or as we have been calling it, "actual person". You wouldn't call a seed a tree, and you wouldn't call an egg a chicken. They are not the same thing, just as a puddle of organic material mixed together after two people had sex and a person are not the same thing. Please explain why you feel the former should be granted constitutional rights.

Actually I do call an chicken egg, a chicken. The genetics of the egg would also call it a chicken.

I'm saying humans in any stage of development should be treated with respect to human life.
Read the discussion of Roe vs Wade, the court already admits the unborn fetus has constitutional rights under the 14 th amendment. it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law"

But because under similar Laws the female against her consent carrying a child to full term is construed as slavery. Then the courts made a pragmatic compromise. That being that abortion is legal up to the time when a child can be separated from the mother and viably live. (this is at 22 weeks right now, though some laws have not been revised and still allow up to 28 weeks))

I argue the mother is responsible for the burden, and doesn't get a out of pregnancy card by killing another human life.


Now when you want to have a discussion about the real topic and stop using sophistry, created terms, created definitions, subjective appeals to emotion of rape, then we could be one step closer to a rational debate.

But i don't see evidence of you being willing to do that.

Okay then we are in agreement. I'm tired of correcting your emotional appeals to reference the facts and the real history.

Yes DoubleR, the Genome of a creature onjectively designates what the freak it is. No matter what stage of development it is in.

You want a stage of human development to be non-human. So a fleshy growth with a human genome growing in a woman womb, the reproductive organ with the one intent of producing human life, is not a human life. Yeah I find that argument to be stupid. You don't want to argue objective facts but personal opinions that make it easy to justify abortion.

Why stop at birth, why not conscious thought, make it legal to kill children up to the age of 3.

Why allow partial birth abortion and not allow when a girlfriend and her boyfriend strangle that lump of flesh after it passes completely through the birth canal?

Well Agent Smith from the Matrix said Humans were a virus, I guess only makes sense you should think the predecessor to human life is a cancerous growth.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:40:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:15:28 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/25/2016 2:22:20 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:29:27 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:07:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You have once again demonstrated why we cannot have a rational debate. You do not pay attention to a single argument I make. You respond to whatever your brain concocts instead of the argument you actually read. You have no interest in attacking my positions, but are rather content with attacking Imaginary Double_R's positions. Start paying attention and then we can continue.

If the shoe fits wear it.

I'm still waiting for you to make a logical argument, instead repeating your subjective made up opinion that humans are not humans protected under the law to life until they can tie their own shoelaces..

Wait was it heart beat? say "mommy"? have R.E.M sleep?

I'm sorry I forget what arbitrary stage of development you use to magically transform a lump of flesh into a human or "person" with value to you.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:53:11 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
How many do you have now and how are they doing?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:56:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:53:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
How many do you have now and how are they doing?

Bulpoop your only enjoyment in these forums is to reply to every thread and have your name fill every line to the right. Under the heading of "last post"

To you it must be like seeing your name in theater lights.

no one likes a troll.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:17:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:53:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
How many do you have now and how are they doing?

Bulpoop your only enjoyment in these forums is to reply to every thread and have your name fill every line to the right. Under the heading of "last post"

To you it must be like seeing your name in theater lights.

no one likes a troll.
These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do. I'm just asking YOU how you intend achieving that end? Got no answer because your claim is just fcking stupid?
Yeah I thought so, to bad I had to use crayons for you to get the message.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:27:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:17:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:53:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
How many do you have now and how are they doing?

Bulpoop your only enjoyment in these forums is to reply to every thread and have your name fill every line to the right. Under the heading of "last post"

To you it must be like seeing your name in theater lights.

no one likes a troll.
These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do. I'm just asking YOU how you intend achieving that end? Got no answer because your claim is just fcking stupid?
Yeah I thought so, to bad I had to use crayons for you to get the message.

Lol bulpoop and crayons, happy derailing another thread with your one liners and insults.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:31:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:27:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:17:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:53:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
How many do you have now and how are they doing?

Bulpoop your only enjoyment in these forums is to reply to every thread and have your name fill every line to the right. Under the heading of "last post"

To you it must be like seeing your name in theater lights.

no one likes a troll.
These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do. I'm just asking YOU how you intend achieving that end? Got no answer because your claim is just fcking stupid?
Yeah I thought so, to bad I had to use crayons for you to get the message.

Lol bulpoop and crayons, happy derailing another thread with your one liners and insults.
Poor Mhyk's definition of a troll=someone who asks a question he can't answer honestly=me
Poor Mhyk's definition of a derailing=someone who asks a question he can't answer honestly=me
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:37:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:05:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being,

It's called democracy.

Are you arguing that there are no inalienable rights and all rights are derived from what the state chooses to grant? Or do you view that there are natural rights and it is the purpose of the state to recognize those rights through enactment of just law?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:41:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:31:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:27:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:17:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:53:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
How many do you have now and how are they doing?

Bulpoop your only enjoyment in these forums is to reply to every thread and have your name fill every line to the right. Under the heading of "last post"

To you it must be like seeing your name in theater lights.

no one likes a troll.
These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do. I'm just asking YOU how you intend achieving that end? Got no answer because your claim is just fcking stupid?
Yeah I thought so, to bad I had to use crayons for you to get the message.

Lol bulpoop and crayons, happy derailing another thread with your one liners and insults.
Poor Mhyk's definition of a troll=someone who asks a question he can't answer honestly=me
Poor Mhyk's definition of a derailing=someone who asks a question he can't answer honestly=me

Bulpoop the reason I don't answer you is becuase in the past I have tried to have a discussion with you. What you do is ask a question then another and another.

You move the goal post and never offer an understanding of issue. Thats what makes you trollish in my book.

Like are you saying a person must be a seperate body to be human?

So Siamese twins are not human?

Go ahead don't concede your implied distinction is non inclusive of entities you would say have a right to life.

In the case of Siamese twins should the one with 70 percent control have the legal right to have the other head cut off?

All these are inteligent contentions with your statement bulpoop. But I know you won't address them but rather ignore the questions asked, ignore the contentions and reply with another different question in the hopes of hiding this debate.

Even Deem will engage in some rational discussion at some time.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:40:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 4:41:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:31:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:27:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:17:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:53:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
How many do you have now and how are they doing?

Bulpoop your only enjoyment in these forums is to reply to every thread and have your name fill every line to the right. Under the heading of "last post"

To you it must be like seeing your name in theater lights.

no one likes a troll.
These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do. I'm just asking YOU how you intend achieving that end? Got no answer because your claim is just fcking stupid?
Yeah I thought so, to bad I had to use crayons for you to get the message.

Lol bulpoop and crayons, happy derailing another thread with your one liners and insults.
Poor Mhyk's definition of a troll=someone who asks a question he can't answer honestly=me
Poor Mhyk's definition of a derailing=someone who asks a question he can't answer honestly=me

Bulpoop the reason I don't answer you is becuase in the past I have tried to have a discussion with you. What you do is ask a question then another and another.
And they are all questions that you can't honestly answer because an honest answer proves your beliefs to be based on fantasy.
You move the goal post and never offer an understanding of issue. Thats what makes you trollish in my book.
I use your original goalposts, as I have done throughout this thread.
Like are you saying a person must be a seperate body to be human?
Within the context of this discussion this is most certainly your contention, that is until you are confronted with it, then you want to move the goalposts.
So Siamese twins are not human?
Where did you put those goalposts and what do siamese twins have to do with a blastocyst that you claim is a human being?
Go ahead don't concede your implied distinction is non inclusive of entities you would say have a right to life.
I'm looking and I can't find where you've placed the goal posts.
In the case of Siamese twins should the one with 70 percent control have the legal right to have the other head cut off?
Just a hint Mhyk, this discussion concerns the womans right to bodily autonomy, not any of your eugenics fantasies.
All these are inteligent contentions with your statement bulpoop.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word intelligent.
But I know you won't address them but rather ignore the questions asked, ignore the contentions and reply with another different question in the hopes of hiding this debate.
Abortion, a woman's right is the discussion of this debate not siamese twins.
Even Deem will engage in some rational discussion at some time.
I would be profoundly impressed if you ever did.
A woman's right to bodily autonomy
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
tarantula
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:09:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
When does a corporation become an actual person?

When is a business a potential person?

When does a developing human get the same rights as a business?

yeah all of these are rhetorical questions because I just want to point out the sophistry used by some on this forum.. is that "actual person" has nothing to do with humanity of an entity and EVERYTHING to do with legal personage.

It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being, on the bases of being "legal personages"

Making a business that sells toilet paper for profit having more rights to life than a human being in the womb.

Until a baby is actually out of the womb it shouldn't have the same rights as one who has been born, imo.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:20:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:09:26 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
When does a corporation become an actual person?

When is a business a potential person?

When does a developing human get the same rights as a business?

yeah all of these are rhetorical questions because I just want to point out the sophistry used by some on this forum.. is that "actual person" has nothing to do with humanity of an entity and EVERYTHING to do with legal personage.

It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being, on the bases of being "legal personages"

Making a business that sells toilet paper for profit having more rights to life than a human being in the womb.

Until a baby is actually out of the womb it shouldn't have the same rights as one who has been born, imo.

That's disgusting trivialization of human life based on spatial positioning. In my opinion
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:24:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:26:37 AM, tarantula wrote:
A foetus only had the potential to be a human, that is all.

So we all begin as cancerous growths and when expelled from a mothers body we then magically become human. That's what your saying.

Sorry human is a species objectively discernable from other species by our genome.

Did you choose birth to define 'human' becuase it helps you justify abortion? Why not conscious thought? REM sleep? Heart beat? Pain sensation? Why didn't you choose any one of those developmental stages of human life?

That is all
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:29:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
When does a corporation become an actual person?


When is a business a potential person?

When does a developing human get the same rights as a business?

yeah all of these are rhetorical questions because I just want to point out the sophistry used by some on this forum.. is that "actual person" has nothing to do with humanity of an entity and EVERYTHING to do with legal personage.

It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being, on the bases of being "legal personages"

Making a business that sells toilet paper for profit having more rights to life than a human being in the womb.

I agree, legal and morally correct are often different things entirely.

Legally when a developing child becomes a person is often varies from country to country, and in some countries is not defined at all.

Morally, there is really only one answer.

A human being is a human being with all the rights to life any human being has from the instant it is conceived.

When does a human being become a completely separate individual not reliant on any other human being?

Never.

In the womb we rely on our Mother's bloodstream to carry us the nutrition we need to grow.

In infancy and childhood we rely on both our parents to provide for us.

As adults we rely on someone to give us a job, or the state to support us.

When we are too old to work, or otherwise incapable of work, we rely on our families or the state to care for us.

There is not one moment in our lives when we are not reliant on someone to provide, or to have provided us with something we need to sustain life.

As John Dunne rightly put it "No man is an Island entire unto itself". We affect those in our sphere of influence, and others affect us, no matter how small an effect we, or they, may have.

Even more importantly, because of our creator and his plan for the earth and all on it, humans also have the right to eternal life, especially now Christ has guaranteed that right for the future, though there was never truly any doubt that Jehovah's plan to get us back on course would succeed, at least amongst those of us who have got to know him.

Since Jehovah has given that right to every human, from conception onward, what moral right do we have to remove that eternal prospect from another no matter how inconvenient, painful, or distressing it may be to us.

In Jehovah's eyes it is truly that simple.

Whose opinion do we value?

Jehovah's

Or our own?

In whose hands does our eternal life rest?

I know my answer, what is yours.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:15:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
RUNNING AWAY MHYK, it's what I expected.
Cowards are always cowards.

At 4/25/2016 8:40:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:41:28 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:31:22 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:27:55 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 4:17:32 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:56:25 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:53:11 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:50:32 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:44:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 4/25/2016 3:36:57 AM, Mhykiel
Got that nursery for 10wk fetus' set up yet?

Your right. I hope this reaches other people and can give pro-life advocates the answers they need to rebuttal the emotional subjective appeals of pro-abortionist.

but I should carry these contentions to a bigger audience. And increase my fight against such immoral legislation.
How many do you have now and how are they doing?

Bulpoop your only enjoyment in these forums is to reply to every thread and have your name fill every line to the right. Under the heading of "last post"

To you it must be like seeing your name in theater lights.

no one likes a troll.
These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do. I'm just asking YOU how you intend achieving that end? Got no answer because your claim is just fcking stupid?
Yeah I thought so, to bad I had to use crayons for you to get the message.

Lol bulpoop and crayons, happy derailing another thread with your one liners and insults.
Poor Mhyk's definition of a troll=someone who asks a question he can't answer honestly=me
Poor Mhyk's definition of a derailing=someone who asks a question he can't answer honestly=me

Bulpoop the reason I don't answer you is becuase in the past I have tried to have a discussion with you. What you do is ask a question then another and another.
And they are all questions that you can't honestly answer because an honest answer proves your beliefs to be based on fantasy.
You move the goal post and never offer an understanding of issue. Thats what makes you trollish in my book.
I use your original goalposts, as I have done throughout this thread.
Like are you saying a person must be a seperate body to be human?
Within the context of this discussion this is most certainly your contention, that is until you are confronted with it, then you want to move the goalposts.
So Siamese twins are not human?
Where did you put those goalposts and what do siamese twins have to do with a blastocyst that you claim is a human being?
Go ahead don't concede your implied distinction is non inclusive of entities you would say have a right to life.
I'm looking and I can't find where you've placed the goal posts.
In the case of Siamese twins should the one with 70 percent control have the legal right to have the other head cut off?
Just a hint Mhyk, this discussion concerns the womans right to bodily autonomy, not any of your eugenics fantasies.
All these are inteligent contentions with your statement bulpoop.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word intelligent.
But I know you won't address them but rather ignore the questions asked, ignore the contentions and reply with another different question in the hopes of hiding this debate.
Abortion, a woman's right is the discussion of this debate not siamese twins.
Even Deem will engage in some rational discussion at some time.
I would be profoundly impressed if you ever did.
A woman's right to bodily autonomy
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:03:48 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:29:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
In whose hands does our eternal life rest?
No ones.
When we die we are dead.
Scary as all sh^t for you ain't it?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:09:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:15:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
RUNNING AWAY MHYK, it's what I expected.
Cowards are always cowards.

These fetus' that you claim are separate human beings should be able to exist away from the host body, that's what humans do. I'm just asking YOU how you intend achieving that end? Got no answer because your claim is just fcking stupid?
Yeah I thought so, to bad I had to use crayons for you to get the message.

So are Siamese twins not human because they are not separate from the host twin.

I've patiently gave you one more chance only to again be affirmed what a troll you are. I offered a valid a contention to your statement of what defines a human and you wanted to talk about goal posts.

You don't engage discussion. You are content in shouting half thought out cliches and mockery. I suspect you have something severely wrong with your mental and/or social abilities. It would be excusable if it was verified you were a 12 year old from an abusive drug addicted prostitute of a mother. But your profile says differently.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:10:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:09:26 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
When does a corporation become an actual person?

When is a business a potential person?

When does a developing human get the same rights as a business?

yeah all of these are rhetorical questions because I just want to point out the sophistry used by some on this forum.. is that "actual person" has nothing to do with humanity of an entity and EVERYTHING to do with legal personage.

It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being, on the bases of being "legal personages"

Making a business that sells toilet paper for profit having more rights to life than a human being in the womb.

Until a baby is actually out of the womb it shouldn't have the same rights as one who has been born, imo.

Do you believe in inalienable human rights?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:15:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:29:54 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:01:07 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
When does a corporation become an actual person?


When is a business a potential person?

When does a developing human get the same rights as a business?

yeah all of these are rhetorical questions because I just want to point out the sophistry used by some on this forum.. is that "actual person" has nothing to do with humanity of an entity and EVERYTHING to do with legal personage.

It is semantics to argue for a subjective arbitrary consensus to deny rights to a human being, on the bases of being "legal personages"

Making a business that sells toilet paper for profit having more rights to life than a human being in the womb.

I agree, legal and morally correct are often different things entirely.

Legally when a developing child becomes a person is often varies from country to country, and in some countries is not defined at all.

Morally, there is really only one answer.

A human being is a human being with all the rights to life any human being has from the instant it is conceived.

When does a human being become a completely separate individual not reliant on any other human being?

Never.

In the womb we rely on our Mother's bloodstream to carry us the nutrition we need to grow.

In infancy and childhood we rely on both our parents to provide for us.

As adults we rely on someone to give us a job, or the state to support us.

When we are too old to work, or otherwise incapable of work, we rely on our families or the state to care for us.

There is not one moment in our lives when we are not reliant on someone to provide, or to have provided us with something we need to sustain life.

As John Dunne rightly put it "No man is an Island entire unto itself". We affect those in our sphere of influence, and others affect us, no matter how small an effect we, or they, may have.

Even more importantly, because of our creator and his plan for the earth and all on it, humans also have the right to eternal life, especially now Christ has guaranteed that right for the future, though there was never truly any doubt that Jehovah's plan to get us back on course would succeed, at least amongst those of us who have got to know him.

Since Jehovah has given that right to every human, from conception onward, what moral right do we have to remove that eternal prospect from another no matter how inconvenient, painful, or distressing it may be to us.

In Jehovah's eyes it is truly that simple.

Whose opinion do we value?

Jehovah's

Or our own?

In whose hands does our eternal life rest?

I know my answer, what is yours.

All good points Mad. But Logic, Ethics, biology seem to have no effect on some of these people. I can only hope the Word of God can reach them.

But I think it's obvious people will justify all kinds of irrational desires. Even denying what biologically makes a human. Even denying that passage through a birth canal is just one stage in a list of developmental stages from conception to death.

Seriously with the negative spin some of these people put on children, parenting, and such forth why don't they advocate for euthanizing children before they have conscious thought and long term memory? Then their murderous death cult could justify killing 3 years old. Hell to save graveyard plots they could just sacrifice the children to Molech, I mean cremate them.

Sadly I don't see that as far fetched. God help us.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:27:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It too bad abortionists can't get as excited about life forming in a womb as these guys are about finding life (sea plankton) in outer space.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...