|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 13:25:55 GMT -8
Yes, black humans are exactly the same as white humans which are exactly the same as Jewish humans which are exactly the same the eldest humans which are exactly the same as the youngest humans. Why do you need this explained more to you? Is there some fairy tale that you won't let go of that says that "some" living human individuals are less worthy of dignity and protection than others simply because of their appearance, age or experiences? The science is undeniable - all of those are 1) living, 2) human and 3) unique individuals, all expressing a wide variety of appearances and experiences that you seem quite intolerant to accept. However, following the utilitarian fairy-tale you're defending - we can completely eliminate ALL homelessness, poverty and child starvation by eliminating the homeless, the poor and the starving children - overnight! It would be messy for a short time, but using the utilitarian fairy-tale you're defending as a model - Imagine, ALL poverty, homelessness and starvation can be eliminated completely, and we can wake up tomorrow to a world completely cured and void of homelessness, poverty and starvation. No more poor or starving children - imagine it if you can. No more hunger or homelessness - it's easy if you try. All it takes is the arbitrary denial of their humanity for the sake of convenience or improving one's own lifestyle. Because THAT'S the utilitarian's fairy-tale approach being defended by your side. So you're OK with abortion for life of the mother or in cases of incest and rape? Or are you another senior citizen male who thinks they have the right to make women nothing other than "birthing persons". The science of biology, physiology and genetics states that a fertilized ovum, embryo or fetus conceived of man and woman is 1) living, 2) human and 3) a unique individual. Do you agree or disagree with the science? No sense talking further if you disagree with scientific facts. |
|
|
|
Post by quantumcomics on Dec 19, 2023 13:37:33 GMT -8
I knew you wouldn't answer that question.
But I'll answer yours. I DON"T CARE...it's not up to me to tell a woman what to do and it's not yours either.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 13:56:11 GMT -8
I knew you wouldn't answer that question. But I'll answer yours. I DON"T CARE... it's not up to me to tell a woman what to do and it's not yours either. Like I said, if you deny plainly obvious scientific facts, then there's no reason to follow your arbitrary and foolish ideas and questions down the contorted and contradictory rabbit hole that is your fairy-tale of utilitarian inhumanity. You don't care about scientific facts. That's clear now. So there's no point even discussing values based on those scientific facts if you go all "flat-earth" regarding basic biology, physiology and genetics. "It's not up to me to tell a slave-holder what to do with his 'property'" - that's your attitude but with different groups of humans being the victims of the atrocities. |
|
|
|
Post by Buzzetta on Dec 19, 2023 14:05:55 GMT -8
Your "common sense" is based on your belief in a fairy tale. The science of biology, physiology and genetics states that a fertilized ovum, embryo or fetus conceived of man and woman is 1) living, 2) human and 3) a unique individual. The foolishness of secular utilitarianism denies that science and therefore rejects the inherent value, dignity and even existence of that living human individual. Such foolishness of denying the humanity and dignity of one group of weaker living human individuals by another more powerful group of living human individuals based on biology, convenience, selfishness and/or utilitarianism is what allows all sorts of atrocities to be committed by the powerful group against the weaker group. Again, though, that is your moral compass. To me personally, I believe that a simply fertilized egg has as much value as a wart on a finger. Now, unlike others that might point a finger at you, I actually believe that you support that belief station. I actually respect you for it. I am serious here. I disagree with your moral compass and I am sure you disagree with mine but if you firmly believe it, I can disagree and still respect you for it. You have conviction and a foundation that it lies on. I have a problem with someone who all of a sudden comes out against abortion because it checks a box to ensure that they can thump their chest and call themselves a conservative. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 14:20:44 GMT -8
The science of biology, physiology and genetics states that a fertilized ovum, embryo or fetus conceived of man and woman is 1) living, 2) human and 3) a unique individual. The foolishness of secular utilitarianism denies that science and therefore rejects the inherent value, dignity and even existence of that living human individual. Such foolishness of denying the humanity and dignity of one group of weaker living human individuals by another more powerful group of living human individuals based on biology, convenience, selfishness and/or utilitarianism is what allows all sorts of atrocities to be committed by the powerful group against the weaker group. Again, though, that is your moral compass. To me personally, I believe that a simply fertilized egg has as much value as a wart on a finger. Now, unlike others that might point a finger at you, I actually believe that you support that belief station. I actually respect you for it. I am serious here. I disagree with your moral compass and I am sure you disagree with mine but if you firmly believe it, I can disagree and still respect you for it. You have conviction and a foundation that it lies on. I have a problem with someone who all of a sudden comes out against abortion because it checks a box to ensure that they can thump their chest and call themselves a conservative. I appreciate the civil response even though we do differ. I don't believe a wart will ever naturally become a teacher, nurse, clerk or poet... although some warts, if old enough, do seem to have a propensity to enter politics.  |
|
|
|
Post by quantumcomics on Dec 19, 2023 14:27:36 GMT -8
Just like I figured.
Coward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buzzetta on Dec 19, 2023 14:35:32 GMT -8
Again, though, that is your moral compass. To me personally, I believe that a simply fertilized egg has as much value as a wart on a finger. Now, unlike others that might point a finger at you, I actually believe that you support that belief station. I actually respect you for it. I am serious here. I disagree with your moral compass and I am sure you disagree with mine but if you firmly believe it, I can disagree and still respect you for it. You have conviction and a foundation that it lies on. I have a problem with someone who all of a sudden comes out against abortion because it checks a box to ensure that they can thump their chest and call themselves a conservative. I appreciate the civil response even though we do differ. I don't believe a wart will ever naturally become a teacher, nurse, clerk or poet... although some warts, if old enough, do seem to have a propensity to enter politics. No worries and I appreciate the appreciation. To me, positions on access to abortion are about moral compass. To me, personally, the Texas stance is overly intrusive pertaining to non-viable fetuses especially if carrying to term causes harm to the mother or disability to carry future fetuses. My problem with throwing the issue back to the states was one of economic inequality. I think I mentioned this privately to Kav last year. We are in fact starting to see situations where those that have money can afford to travel or permanently relocate to states where abortion is a choice but those that are poor cannot. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Namor on Dec 19, 2023 14:53:40 GMT -8
So you're OK with abortion for life of the mother or in cases of incest and rape? Or are you another senior citizen male who thinks they have the right to make women nothing other than "birthing persons". Many Republicans ARE of course, until it happens to someone in their own family. Then they suddenly change their views. The Right to Choose will be a much bigger issue in the next election than the Republicans want to believe, and if the Democrats are smart (and generally they AREN'T) they'd hammer this point as much as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 14:55:44 GMT -8
As a biologist I see it as cells. yes a fertilized egg can become a human. but it is not a human. an egg and a sperm cell in a petri dish can become a human. this does not mean they have 'rights'. potential does not equal actual. I mean if it was possible to make every sperm become a human with every egg, if it was technologically feasible, should we do that? because the population would immediately jump past duodecillion-10 to the 39th power. every seed is a potential tree. does that mean we are killing trees if we do not plant and nurture every seed? In cases of rape I cannot condone forcing a woman or young girl to carry her rapist's baby.
What is the point of life if it exists in a miserable world? Quality of life is under rated in the rush to 'preserve life'. A world where a young victim of violent rape has to carry the child is a miserable world.
On the flip side partial birth abortions or abortions after the first trimester conceived with consensual sex I am against.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 15:43:31 GMT -8
As a biologist I see it as cells. yes a fertilized egg can become a human. but it is not a human. an egg and a sperm cell in a petri dish can become a human. this does not mean they have 'rights'. potential does not equal actual. I mean if it was possible to make every sperm become a human with every egg, if it was technologically feasible, should we do that? because the population would immediately jump past duodecillion-10 to the 39th power. every seed is a potential tree. does that mean we are killing trees if we do not plant and nurture every seed? In cases of rape I cannot condone forcing a woman or young girl to carry her rapist's baby. What is the point of life if it exists in a miserable world? Quality of life is under rated in the rush to 'preserve life'. A world where a young victim of violent rape has to carry the child is a miserable world. On the flip side partial birth abortions or abortions after the first trimester conceived with consensual sex I am against. Any biologist would agree that cells are 1) Living. Okay. Then if the cells (which we all are) are not human as you suggest, then what are they? Mule? Crayfish? Algae? Of course they are human. A fertilized single cell is what a human looks like when it is one day old. So, the cells are 2) Human (not dog, fish or ant, the cells are human). Okay. Now what about 3) unique individual? Genetically they are neither the mother's cells, nor the father's cells, nor any other being that has ever existed before (even identical twins have slight genetic differences, different fingerprints, etc). So they are unique individuals. Do we at least agree on the science of what we're considering here? If we can agree that a fertilized ovum, embryo or fetus conceived of man and woman is 1) living, 2) human and 3) a unique individual - THEN we can move on to your next point about whether that unique, individual, living human has the right to life. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 15:47:06 GMT -8
As a biologist I see it as cells. yes a fertilized egg can become a human. but it is not a human. an egg and a sperm cell in a petri dish can become a human. this does not mean they have 'rights'. potential does not equal actual. I mean if it was possible to make every sperm become a human with every egg, if it was technologically feasible, should we do that? because the population would immediately jump past duodecillion-10 to the 39th power. every seed is a potential tree. does that mean we are killing trees if we do not plant and nurture every seed? In cases of rape I cannot condone forcing a woman or young girl to carry her rapist's baby. What is the point of life if it exists in a miserable world? Quality of life is under rated in the rush to 'preserve life'. A world where a young victim of violent rape has to carry the child is a miserable world. On the flip side partial birth abortions or abortions after the first trimester conceived with consensual sex I am against. Any biologist would agree that cells are 1) Living. Okay. Then if the cells (which we all are) are not human as you suggest, then what are they? Mule? Crayfish? Algae? Of course they are human. A fertilized single cell is what a human looks like when it is one day old. So, the cells are 2) Human (not dog, fish or ant, the cells are human). Okay. Now what about 3) unique individual? Genetically they are neither the mother's cells, nor the father's cells, nor any other being that has ever existed before (even identical twins have slight genetic differences, different fingerprints, etc). So they are unique individuals. Do we at least agree on the science of what we're considering here? If we can agree that a fertilized ovum, embryo or fetus conceived of man and woman is 1) living, 2) human and 3) a unique individual - THEN we can move on to your next point about whether that unique, individual, living human has the right to life. a kidney cell is unique human and living. |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 15:56:19 GMT -8
Any biologist would agree that cells are 1) Living. Okay. Then if the cells (which we all are) are not human as you suggest, then what are they? Mule? Crayfish? Algae? Of course they are human. A fertilized single cell is what a human looks like when it is one day old. So, the cells are 2) Human (not dog, fish or ant, the cells are human). Okay. Now what about 3) unique individual? Genetically they are neither the mother's cells, nor the father's cells, nor any other being that has ever existed before (even identical twins have slight genetic differences, different fingerprints, etc). So they are unique individuals. Do we at least agree on the science of what we're considering here? If we can agree that a fertilized ovum, embryo or fetus conceived of man and woman is 1) living, 2) human and 3) a unique individual - THEN we can move on to your next point about whether that unique, individual, living human has the right to life. a kidney cell is unique human and living. Then you agree, yes? (Just taking one step at a time, because some folks can't even get as far as you have.) |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 15:58:39 GMT -8
a kidney cell is unique human and living. Then you agree, yes? (Just taking one step at a time, because some folks can't even get as far as you have.) so is a biospy of the kidney 'killing humans'? |
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Dec 19, 2023 16:12:48 GMT -8
Then you agree, yes? (Just taking one step at a time, because some folks can't even get as far as you have.) so is a biospy of the kidney 'killing humans'? Do kidney cells, through their natural uninterrupted growth, become children, teachers, nurses, etc? We've now established that the fertilized ovum is not "just a blob of goo" (that's actually, word-for-word, what a psychiatrist told a family member of mine who had an abortion in her past and has been struggling for years after learning what she had actually done) but is living unique human individual. Now the next step is to your point about "potential" vs "actual" human. Fair enough? |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Dec 19, 2023 16:17:52 GMT -8
so is a biospy of the kidney 'killing humans'? Do kidney cells, through their natural uninterrupted growth, become children, teachers, nurses, etc? We've now established that the fertilized ovum is not "just a blob of goo" (that's actually, word-for-word, what a psychiatrist told a family member of mine who had an abortion in her past and has been struggling for years after learning what she had actually done) but is living unique human individual. Now the next step is to your point about "potential" vs "actual" human. Fair enough? thry cloning a kidney cell could through uninterrupted growth become a human. And fertilization itself is an interruption. left alone, no female ever just spontaneously gets pregnant. |
|
