Viability according to what? The ability to have someone else take care of it? In that case, many humans in hospitals should also be terminated because they are not "viable" on their own. The people in the hospital don't need to be in their momma's womb to surviveDoes "viability" trump "its the woman's choice" then? On what scale are you measuring this "viability", considering that many babies survive out of the womb before the arbitrary marker some put on abortions? Is it a game of chance where you select based on the chances of survival? Do you even fetal viability bro?I see some ignorance here. Genital warts are not separate entities because they have the same genetic composition as the host. Ok, but they can't survive without their host's body, just like the pre 5-6-month-old fetusesA fetus has a unique genetic code, so obviously its a separate organism Tumors also have a different genetic codeor do you not science? I do, that's why I'm still hereNo, that is logically inconsistent. You can't believe its a woman's choice if you are going to override that choice at some arbitrary point of your choosing. It indicates that the choice is just secondary to whatever issue you place above it. Ah! So you are one of those who doesn't bandy words and accepts that if choice is really the issue, the woman should be allowed to kill the baby at any point. You have a lot of convincing to do for your fellow pro-choicers who don't have the stomach to go all the way with their logic. I'm pretty sure a lot of pro lifers here wouldn't mind letting a woman abort the fetus for medical reasons or if she had been raped/were a victim of incest, that doesn't make them any less pro lifeEdit: BBCode link shit |
Comic_SansAug 27, 2016 12:16 PM
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
| Why not be pro-anything anyway, kill what you wanna kill and if there's any consequences face them. As far as I hear every day people bitch about lack of free choice, why not give it to them. |
 |
RedRoseFring said: Ah! So you are one of those who doesn't bandy words and accepts that if choice is really the issue, the woman should be allowed to kill the baby at any point. You have a lot of convincing to do for your fellow pro-choicers who don't have the stomach to go all the way with their logic. I think you've got your interpretation wrong, the parent's gender has nothing to do with that, that's sexist. |
| ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ |
Comic_Sans said: Viability according to what? The ability to have someone else take care of it? In that case, many humans in hospitals should also be terminated because they are not "viable" on their own. The people in the hospital don't need to be in their momma's womb to surviveDoes "viability" trump "its the woman's choice" then? On what scale are you measuring this "viability", considering that many babies survive out of the womb before the arbitrary marker some put on abortions? Is it a game of chance where you select based on the chances of survival? Do you even fetal viability bro?I see some ignorance here. Genital warts are not separate entities because they have the same genetic composition as the host. Ok, but they can't survive without their host's body, just like the pre 5-6-month-old fetusesA fetus has a unique genetic code, so obviously its a separate organism Tumors also have a different genetic codeor do you not science? I do, that's why I'm still hereNo, that is logically inconsistent. You can't believe its a woman's choice if you are going to override that choice at some arbitrary point of your choosing. It indicates that the choice is just secondary to whatever issue you place above it. Ah! So you are one of those who doesn't bandy words and accepts that if choice is really the issue, the woman should be allowed to kill the baby at any point. You have a lot of convincing to do for your fellow pro-choicers who don't have the stomach to go all the way with their logic. I'm pretty sure a lot of pro lifers here wouldn't mind letting a woman abort the fetus for medical reasons or if she had been raped/were a victim of incest, that doesn't make them any less pro lifeEdit: BBCode link shit So viability is defined as being outside the mother's womb? Then that's not really viability but location. You are deciding when a child can be killed based on location, because other people in similar states who you don't think should be killed only differ in their location. So for you, there is no limit for abortion when there is no external equipment or person on hand to care for the baby. It is clear the deciding factor to you is if the fetus can survive with external help outside of the mother's body, so what about cases where it is far too delicate to tamper with the pregnancy all the way to birth? Are you saying it is okay to kill those ones up to 9 months because they can't survive otherwise? And no. Tumours are cancer cells with the same genetic code as the host. Do you even genetics? All the chromosomes are the same as the host's. Sure some pro-lifers can hold such views, but that just means they are inconsistent in their logic. If the mother's life is in danger, then it is still a pro-life issue so both do not lose their lives. Cases of rape are not though, as that means consensual conception takes precedence to life. ashfrliebert said: RedRoseFring said: Ah! So you are one of those who doesn't bandy words and accepts that if choice is really the issue, the woman should be allowed to kill the baby at any point. You have a lot of convincing to do for your fellow pro-choicers who don't have the stomach to go all the way with their logic. I think you've got your interpretation wrong, the parent's gender has nothing to do with that, that's sexist. Wait, so the father is the one who carries the baby for 9 months? Of course not, it is the mother, so the essence of pro-choice is that the mother decides if she can kill the growing child or not. Saying that that is not the case at certain arbitrary points indicates that the choice is really a secondary issue, like Comic-sans indicates that if the fetus can survive externally is the deciding factor for her. So in that case, I guess you could say "pro-external survivability." |
RedRoseFringAug 27, 2016 5:38 PM
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
So viability is defined as being outside the mother's womb? Then that's not really viability but location. You are deciding when a child can be killed based on location, because other people in similar states who you don't think should be killed only differ in their location. So for you, there is no limit for abortion when there is no external equipment or person on hand to care for the baby. No, viability is when you're developed enough to survive outside of the mother's wombIt is clear the deciding factor to you is if the fetus can survive with external help outside of the mother's body, so what about cases where it is far too delicate to tamper with the pregnancy all the way to birth? Are you saying it is okay to kill those ones up to 9 months because they can't survive otherwise? No, since it's become a human being at this point. This isn't something that happens often thoughAnd no. Tumours are cancer cells with the same genetic code as the host. Do you even genetics? All the chromosomes are the same as the host's. Tumors consist of mutated cells/DNA so no not reallySure some pro-lifers can hold such views, but that just means they are inconsistent in their logic. If the mother's life is in danger, then it is still a pro-life issue so both do not lose their lives. Cases of rape are not though, as that means consensual conception takes precedence to life. I don't see why there couldn't possibly be different nuances |
Comic_SansAug 27, 2016 11:00 PM
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
RedRoseFring said: Wait, so the father is the one who carries the baby for 9 months? Of course not, it is the mother, I think this is debatable, and I will debate it. Given NON-Liberal(or as I like to call it LIEberal), unbias sources. No wikipedia pages or biology books, do your own research. |
| ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ |
| Circle Jerk – The Thread razor39999 said: I think he's talking about juridicial abortionashfrliebert said: Huh? What exactly is going on here? Are you really trying to argue for the father being pregnant? Or am I seriously misunderstanding something here (hope so)?I think this is debatable, and I will debate it. Given NON-Liberal(or as I like to call it LIEberal), unbias sources. No wikipedia pages or biology books, do your own research. |
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
razor39999 said: Are you really trying to argue for the father being pregnant? Or am I seriously misunderstanding something here (hope so)? My words are as clear as day with no room for misinterpretation, something something do your own research Shredder said: Why not be pro-anything anyway, kill what you wanna kill and if there's any consequences face them. As far as I hear every day people bitch about lack of free choice, why not give it to them. Fetuses just aren't worth fighting for, but even if fetuses had some sort of inherent rights, a mass of cells that can develop until a child, an embyro, a fetus..all just doesn't circumvent the rights of a woman. Nevermind the rights of..actual people. What's killing people(as opposed to collection of cells!) really going to do in the end? Are they going to feel bad about their crimes? Rehabilitation in hell? There's too many grey areas of when it's "okay" to kill a criminal too, unless we're going to put people on death row for petty crimes. How is "people who can be rehabilitated" and "people who can't" measured? Worse of all, what if you killed the wrong guy? I dunno, just feel like we could be more civilized here. |
ashfrliebertAug 28, 2016 3:33 AM
| ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ |
Comic_Sans said: So viability is defined as being outside the mother's womb? Then that's not really viability but location. You are deciding when a child can be killed based on location, because other people in similar states who you don't think should be killed only differ in their location. So for you, there is no limit for abortion when there is no external equipment or person on hand to care for the baby. No, viability is when you're developed enough to survive outside of the mother's wombIt is clear the deciding factor to you is if the fetus can survive with external help outside of the mother's body, so what about cases where it is far too delicate to tamper with the pregnancy all the way to birth? Are you saying it is okay to kill those ones up to 9 months because they can't survive otherwise? No, since it's become a human being at this point. This isn't something that happens often thoughAnd no. Tumours are cancer cells with the same genetic code as the host. Do you even genetics? All the chromosomes are the same as the host's. Tumors consist of mutated cells/DNA so no not reallySure some pro-lifers can hold such views, but that just means they are inconsistent in their logic. If the mother's life is in danger, then it is still a pro-life issue so both do not lose their lives. Cases of rape are not though, as that means consensual conception takes precedence to life. I don't see why there couldn't possibly be different nuancesViability is not an absolute as many fetuses that are aborted do survive outside of the womb. The probabilities may be small, but they are still not absolute, so how do you decide that? 50% chance? 30%? No matter what number you end up at, it will still be arbitrary and never absolute. And no, a human being is formed right at conception. It is a being (an entity that exists) and is human. Mutated DNA is not the same as an entirely separate genome. That is described by the chromosomes in the cell (46 chromosomes), and every cell in a person except for the gametes has a full set unique to that person. There can be nuances as long as they are consistent with the same logic. If there is a factor that trumps other factors, then that factor is the primary factor for deciding, moreso than any others that would be dependent on it. |
| "Let Justice Be Done!" My Theme Fight again, fight again for justice! |
Viability is not an absolute as many fetuses that are aborted do survive outside of the womb. Yeah, no, a few minutes and no possibility to save them even with the help of neonatal care doesn't countThe probabilities may be small, but they are still not absolute, so how do you decide that? 50% chance? 30%? No matter what number you end up at, it will still be arbitrary and never absolute. 5-6 months, I've already said this like 10 times beforeAnd no, a human being is formed right at conception. It is a being (an entity that exists) and is human. LOL, something being human doesn't make it a human being, read the other posts in this threadMutated DNA is not the same as an entirely separate genome. That is described by the chromosomes in the cell, and every cell in a person except for the gametes has a full set unique to that person. But the DNA still doesn't look completely the same, so you can't say they're entirely non separate eitherThere can be nuances as long as they are consistent with the same logic. If there is a factor that trumps other factors, then that factor is the primary factor for deciding, moreso than any others that would be dependent on it. My logic is consistent though |
Comic_SansAug 28, 2016 3:25 PM
Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
More topics from this board
Poll: » do you hide or deny your dark side to others or society?deg - Today |
29 |
by cyandaqil
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
62 |
by 707supremacist
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Apr 24 |
41 |
by 707supremacist
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» Do you think there should be an age limit on friendship?Thy-Veseveia - Feb 28 |
38 |
by cody
»»
42 minutes ago |
|
» proxyjackfrostenson - 2 hours ago |
1 |
by vasipi4946
»»
1 hour ago |