Come on, you pansies! Can you give me one good reason for continuing to allow abortion on demand? Can you?
It used to be the arguement that life did not begin at conception. Medical science has proven that life does in fact begin at conception; by the division of the one cell into two, life has begun. Being human life, to end that life is murder, or do you have some other definition? While that life may not be sustainable outside of the womb, it is still a viable life form, human by design, and therefore worthy of preservation. Do you disagree? As medical science progresses, we will be able to keep that life form alive and growing outside of the womans womb. Whether willingly or unwillingly conceived, would you still justify the murder of innocent human life as the womans right if it is medically possible to preserve that life outside of her body? If you say no, then you have no reason to justify it now. If you say yes, give me your reasons, if you can.
Well, it, like cloning, is going to become a reality, probably sooner than any of us will believe possible.
I know that thought disturbs a lot of people; everyone pictures something like that baby in the compartment from Star Trek that was going to grow up to be one of the Borg, or something like The Matrix, with tubes and disgusting fluids all around. I thought about that, and wanted to generate that kind of thought in your mind; I didn’t want to paint it all rosey and good; there can and will be an ugly side to any progress.
I don’t think we will let it get to that point, at least not legally, but what we will get is frozen embryos waiting for a suitable female host; women who cannot get pregnant on their own will be implanted with the embryo of their choice, possibly even ones that they themselves mothered but were unwilling to carry to term at that particular time in their life. It will then truly be a freedom of choice, to carry to term or to save for another day. But there will no longer be a ‘right’ to terminate. I will go with life, and deal with the potential problems of the future when they arrive.
I would not approve of having a child for the purposes of having a potential donor for an existing sibling who may be ill, as some have already done. Nor would I condone cloning a person simply to grow a donatable organ to the original person. But I would approve of growing an organ in the lab, if possible, to save the life of the original person. Just wanted to clarify those areas, in case anyone was wondering.
Well, I am popping in, as I do about every few weeks… it’s good to see QubeTV go exactly the way I predicted… discussion has almost entirely halted, and they have had to reduce themselves to snake-oil advertisements since no one reputable is interested. Only another few months now.
Marant, if you want to make abortion illegal, the burden of proof is on you. Medical science might have “proven” that “life” begins at conception, but we’ve known that for decades. I still would like to hear your proof of why the clump of cells formed a week after conception is a person with rights. It has the potential to be a person in the future, but that does not seem sufficient. I certainly agree it is often “worthy of preservation”, but the mother’s right to have that cluster of cells removed supercedes the hypothetical rights of a future person, in the same way my right to wear a condom with my girlfriend supercedes the hypothetical rights of the future person which might exist if my sperm combined with her ovum and implanted in her uterus. She and I are real people now, and our rights come before hypothetical rights of hypothetical people.
It is medically possible, at least in sound theory, to sustain a zygote outside of the uterus already. It has been for years. That doesn’t give that zygote the rights of a person. By your logic, it is a crime not to raise as many test-tube babies as possible, and all fertilization techniques wherein multiples zygotes are implanted with the knowledge that only one will be able to survive (barring bizarre exceptions) is also a crime, rather than implanting each one at a time so that they have maximum chances to survive. If a zygote has rights as a person, furthermore, and those rights are as full as anyone else’s (which goes without saying, since presumably people are created equal) then the mother should also be prosecuted for aggravated assault if she smokes or drinks.
I am curious: what criminal penalties should be imposed on mothers who smoke or drink, since they are knowingly chemically assaulting a person with rights? If the child has fetal alcohol syndrome, I assume you would prosecute the mother for maiming a person?
I guess you probably didn’t think this out, though.
You’re ok with woman being implanted with an “embryo of their choice” but you’re not ok with someone getting pregnant naturally to possibly cure a disease in a sibling?
You’re talking about playing God and it’s truly f’ed up and beyond disturbing.
Nothing you guys said… I had about five paragraphs typed up, hit the wrong key, and poof, ALL GONE! FUCKING QUBETV!!! There, got that out of my system.
Mr. P, thanks for stopping by. I suspected you would. Next time, bring your girlfriend along. (I actually typed ‘Nest time’, and considered leaving it as is, but that would have been crude of me.)
First, how did you get to the assumption that I wanted to outlaw abortion? I asked IF it were possible to preserve the life outside the womb, would you still want the woman to have the RIGHT to abort? I did not say that I want to outlaw abortion. I didn’t say that I wanted to outlaw anything, I was asking for you (generally speaking) to consider it in those terms, and if you would not agree to it being a right, then how can it be justified now? This is not a question of legallity for the here and now, but for the individual to consider the question.
Now, you did provide some justification in your comments, cluttered as they were. You are correct, you, or more directly, your girlfriend does have rights that come before the potential life that might dwell within her. She has every legal right to abort it if she chooses, and certainly if it threatens her existence. But again, that was not the question, so let me make it more personal for you, maybe you’ll give a direct answer. Would you, Mr. P, give her the right to abort the child if it were just as convenient to remove it and preserve it for the future? Would you prefer for it to be aborted rather than preserved?
(I personally would give her even more right; I would say that she has the right to abort without your consent or knowledge. Unless you have a written agreement to share in the ‘fruits’ of your union, you, in my opinion, should not have any rights to any child, only the financial responsibility to provide for it, because it should be your responsibility to protect yourself from such a possibility. Men have been getting away with this for too long, and it is time to turn the tables. It would probably do more to reduce abortions than anything else has so far.)
As these options were not available in the past, abortion became a political football. Rather than agreeing that it was a last resort, an ugly option, a horrible result of improper conduct (ignorance, rape, etc.), it became the opposite, available on demand, and profitable for its practicioners. Rather than perfecting its methods and efficiency, medical science should have been working to develop alternatives to eliminate its necessity. Conservative are as much, if not more, to blame for this, as their fears of science playing god prevented them from advocating such advances, and they permitted themselves to be painted as anti-everything, not just abortion. But now we are on the verge of making the need to perform abortions obsolete, and I want to know where liberals will likely fall, on the side of life, or a womans ‘right’?
As for your hypothetical person not having any rights, or being an equal to your sperm, that’s ridiculous. First of all, there’s no guarantee that your sperm will successfully impregnate the egg. They could be very poor swimmers. And, without the sperm, the egg is useless, and discarded by the body. Once impregnated, the egg is a human life, at its earliest stages, and should be permitted the chance to survive. Again, if the options are available, this would be preferrable to abortion.
(Does my right to free speech protect me from the hypothetical probability that what I say may offend others? If I chant “nigger” like Michael Richards, does the likely offense others might take become invalid because of my right?)
Your other comments regarding laws were simply not pertinent; you assumed, and we all know what that means, but it doesn’t apply to me here.
Finnegan, would you have a couple, with a terminally ill child, create another child for the purpose of providing a donor to save the ill child? Who’s playing god here? You would have a kidney removed, or part of a liver, just as an example, to provide it to the other child? This child was not created because it was wanted, only part(s) of it. What do you do with the second child if it becomes ill with the same disease, create yet another one? Would you have one born to provide an eye for a child blinded by accident, condemning the second to a life with one eye? Would you have age limits? The first child is 10, or 14, or 20? Create a new child, let it live until the organs are mature enough to support the older child, then force the child to submit to an operation to provide the organ? That, my dear, is not beyond disturbing, that is sick as hell.
You began your little challenge demanding to know a reason why there should still be abortion on demand. I thought my conclusions on your position were pretty obvious assumptions.
I have no interest in what you apparently want to talk about: some straw man notion of morality in a “what if” scenario. So, bye I guess.
No Marant, I didn’t say I was supportive of anyone creating life as a medical treatment, I was simply trying to understand your logic, you’re all for playing God in some circumstances and not in others.
I think abortion is murder, I think we can’t even begin to see the ramifications of what happens to a human who’s created in a lab, we have women who go to a dr to get pregnant with a child who will never have a father. It’s all very very disturbing. No, i’m not for abortion, but i’m also not in favor of harvesting unwanted children from the womb to be grown in a lab or purchased by a couple looking for a blond haired blue eyed baby.
Finnegan, sorry if you misunderstood. I would not want to create the child in the lab, I would prefer to stop abortions by removing the life from the woman, preserving it, either for herself for the future, or for others should it be donated, to be adopted by those who are unable to reproduce. I would approve of the organs individually being reproduced (cloned) in a lab, but not growing the whole person for that purpose, either in a lab or naturally.
I don’t think it would be a matter of a couple shopping for an idealic child, more an act of charity or need; I cannot imagine how a woman who is raped could ever want to carry that child to term; abortion is the easy way out of that horribly bad situation. And while I have my own reservations of the behavior of the adult born out of an act of violence (we don’t know if such conduct is a hereditary trait, I mean), if it were possible to preserve it rather than destroy it, I think that is the way we should be going. And, honestly, I feel pretty comfortable with the thought of a bank of preserved humans being available to repopulate the human species should something happen to us or our ability to reproduce. The future is wide open, we really should be prepared for as much as possible. I hope I clarified that better this time. Sorry for the tone last time, the site really pissed me off there.
I’m sure your out there Mr. P, so keep reading. I see now the P should stand for pussy, because that is what you are. You yourself said that the technology now exist, but call my scenario a ‘what if’, and refuse to answer the question of choosing life over abortion. You could not bring yourself to choose life, now or in the future, because that would destroy your defense of abortion now. The fact is that you do not support life, any more than you support the troops, because you hate life, human life anyway, you fear your own existence, and you fear death. You probably think every aborted child was a potentially dangerous Hitler, or even worse, a Conservative, and better off dead. Those are my pretty obvious assumptions to your chicken-shit cut and run bullshit. yeah, bye, I’m done with you.
You’re a pretty big fucking idiot, and don’t bother to think any of this out. The technology exists in the same way that the technology to go to Saturn exists, not in a current usable stage. Thus, it is hypothetical, you goddamn moron. We can’t run out and do it now, can we, dipshit?
If a fetus is a person, then abortion is immoral now and we would be obligated to preserve the fetus from the earliest point possible, including the zygote stage. Anything else would be negligent homicide..
If the fetus is not a person, then the woman can choose to get rid of it entirely, preserve it, or whatever. And since I don’t think fetuses are people, that means that logically while it might be nice to transplant to an artificial environment once it becomes viable, it is not a moral choice but rather one of personal preference for the woman.
I swear to christ you are one of the dullest debaters on the face of the earth. You make decyphe look like Enrico Fermi, inasmuch as he is at least capable of logical extrapolation. You do not appear to be able to distinguish potential technology from actual technology in use, or to make a simple jump based upon the hypothetical mores at work in this question. The only person who would be better off dead is you, so that your gibbering I’m-agnostic-oh-golly-please-like-me-guys nonsense would be over and no one would have to read it anymore. Yes, we get it, you insufferable jackass, you’re an agnostic but you’re also conservative. Wow it’s amazing, now shut the hell up about it. Pick up a book on introductory philosophy to occupy yourself now that your constant seeking of validation is done. Fucking moron.
It’s like pulling teeth, but there it is… “Medical science might have “proven” that “life” begins at conception, but we’ve known that for decades”
“If a fetus is a person, then abortion is immoral now and we would be obligated to preserve the fetus from the earliest point possible, including the zygote stage. Anything else would be negligent homicide..”
“And since I don’t think fetuses are people, that means that logically while it might be nice to transplant to an artificial environment once it becomes viable, it is not a moral choice but rather one of personal preference for the woman.”
Goodness, was that so hard? Rather than attempting to control the direction this exchange would take, if you could have simply said that to begin with, this would have gone much nicer. I believe you have finally answered all the questions. You have agreed life begins at conception, but stated that you do not consider a fetus a person, therefore, to you, the right to abort supercedes the life it represents, and even if it were an option to remove and preserve rather than abort, you would still prefer the woman have the right to abort the life.
You may be bored, but you were interested enough to post a response after a long silence. If you want to control the discussion, seriously, start your own group.
I am quite aware of where our tech lies at this time, my questions were prefaced with the understanding that the science was possible in time, but not now. It was hypothetical, of course, as I asked the questions, but you chose to take the discussion in your own direction. I am of the opinion our science should have been directed to end abortion by coming up with alternatives, and we have failed all those that we have aborted by allowing it to continue. I consider human life that important, whereas even if we had alternatives, you would still allow it to be destroyed, on the whim of the woman. I would not.
Yes, I realize what I am saying; I would authorize the preservation of life even if the woman did not want it to live. And I would permit the government the authority to preserve it. If she does not want to carry it to term, preservation is preferrable to termination.
Now, if you do care to continue, let’s go from here, as I am curious, and if you can actually stimulate some thought in me or anyone else, then this will have served its purpose. If not, just say so.
Jesus christ you are a raging maelstrom of stupidfuck.
After I carefully differentiated, you are still stumbling along without clearly defining what the fuck you mean by “human life”. You are like the Idiot Captain of the S.S. Retarded Conservative, embarking on a pleasure cruise to What The Fuck Is Logic Again.
If you believe the “life”, which is to say, zygote, has rights which supercede those of the woman’s to control her body (of which it is part), then it is a goddamn person. Or what, does it have special zygote rights? Where did you get those from, that you decide that even though it doesn’t have the right to live, it still has some other form of right to life wherein it should still be preserved despite the wishes of the owner? Is there some sort of Zygote Theorist I’m not aware of, dumbshit, or did you just not think of that?
It would save time if you just bit a bullet, you raging assclown. I swear, your thought process has the motility of a drunken sack of molasses, and just as much swiftness. Fucking define your terms, idiot: does the zygote have rights, or not? If it does, how the fuck do you justify allowing it to be killed? If it does not, how the fuck do you justify giving it the right to survive? It’s amazing you’re still alive at all, I’d have expected you to have cut yourself on a spoon with this level of ineptness.
Look at how easily he was prompted into commonality with Liberal1776, Decepto, and other liberal attack dogs. One paragraph has put him into an uncontrollable fury. He not only continues to vomit here, he took to attacking others in their groups, profanities and vulgar descriptions of human anatomy being used to attack people he does not know, and claimed not to be familiar with, as this site is beneath him. Clearly, he’s been ‘popping in’ quite often. He went off on an immature tirade because I challenged him to simply answer the questions asked rather than avoid them (a tactic no doubt learned from years of watching liberal pundits on TV talk shows – shout louder than the opponent until they give up). Must have hit a nerve there, huh?
So, was his outburst because I pointed out that he has less respect for human life than I, or Conservatives, or the religious, who he takes such delight in denigrating? Or was it because I accused him of being unable to answer the questions because he could not think of a way to answer the questions without admitting that abortion is wrong? Or was it the fearing life and death thing? Actually, I don’t really want to know, I’m still laughing about the ‘please like me even though I’m not like you’ crap… you have no idea how funny that was…. to someone who has been called a loner, a hermit, a psycho, antisocial, mean and cold, all his life, that was hilarious. just so you know, like the Jehovahs, I have a limit on the number I allow into my little slice of heaven … and I’m already at maximum capacity …
He continuously attempts to impress us with his supposed knowledge; in an age when anyone can google or yahoo or ask anything online and get so much information, claims of knowledge are like million selling albums, ho hum. You have to show what you know makes a difference in you, otherwise, your knowledge is useless.
So, what part of this did he not understand: “You have agreed life begins at conception, but stated that you do not consider a fetus a person, therefore, to you, the right to abort supercedes the life it represents, and even if it were an option to remove and preserve rather than abort, you would still prefer the woman have the right to abort the life.”, and “I would authorize the preservation of life even if the woman did not want it to live. And I would permit the government the authority to preserve it. If she does not want to carry it to term, preservation is preferrable to termination.”?
Did that not spell it out for him? I would grant the potential human life the right to life, as the technology makes it possible to do so. ‘Zygote Rights’... could become a big money maker for the lawyers. Until the tech gets us to that point, abortion is going to be with us, whether legal or not (I suspect it will remain legal until such time.) Not my personal preference, but like I said, we have failed those we aborted by our failure to work for the preservation of life, and we will continue to do so.
How will we get there? The abortion fight itself is over, ladies and gentlemen. There isn’t any alternative for the majority of women who get pregnant and do not want to be. We can preach abstinance, we can encourage prevention and safety, but it’s still going to happen, and it’s going to happen to those that cannot afford or care for the child. If the woman is willing to carry to term, great, hopefully, someone will adopt it. But the reality is that it doesn’t happen often enough.
We have to allow science to find another way, and that may also require some things you might not like to happen.
Stem cell research has been promising in many areas, and may be all that is necessary to get us there; but what if embryonic stem cells hold the key to ending abortion, among other things, and we refuse to allow them to be utilized? How long will you allow this to go on? Hasn’t it been long enough?
That was a fuck of a lot of text to say that you were entirely fucking wrong and didn’t bother to actually think it out. And if googling worked for this kind of shit, then you wouldn’t be so fucking stupid, now would you? You have access to google too, although for that matter you also have access to science and philosophy books and you don’t use them either.
Oh I see you are turning the discussion to me and to concluding since you realized that you’re dumb as shit. And you guys dont fucking deserve any effort in debate, since I tried that and was rebuffed by people being rude as shit. So fuck you and the rest of you, this is solely for my amusement now.
You are just as stupid as shit on the sole of my shoe. If the zygote has RIGHTS, then why do you get to ABORT it?! You stupid fucking moron, you are claiming the zygote has rights that supercede those of the mother to determine its fate, so why the fuck do you still get to kill it if you choose? It’s either a person or a part of the woman, it can’t be both! Which is it, you stupid asshole?
I would suggest cleaning your shoes off before coming into the house, assuming of course you are using your own computer. For the last time, it was you not I that said anything about making abortion illegal. I asked for justification for it to remain legal if alternatives were available. Follow along, understand what you are reading. Again it was asked if the alternatives exist, would you still abort. You said you would. I never said that it should not be legal now, just asked how would you justify it now if you would not permit it in the future. You chose to permit it regardless of the alternatives. You chose not to allow life to live if the woman does not want it to in spite of an alternative to abortion, and you stated that it does not have rights; I guess you fail to see the possibility of it having rights should alternatives become available. I could not have said or admit I was wrong, because there are no wrong questions, only incomplete answers, which you provided along with your own assumptions as to my position to base your accusations and questions on; you were so busy jumping to conclusions, no doubt because of your hatred for Conservatives. Now, since you’ve apparently gone completely off your rocker, I think it’s time for you to re-examine yourself, I suspect you have not yet regained the stamina to withstand this. That is almost an exact quote of your words prior to your first leaving, in case you forgot.
“it was you not I that said anything about making abortion illegal. I asked for justification for it to remain legal if alternatives were available”
You’re such an ignorant and stupid fuck. The alternative to it being legal is that it is illegal, since it’s a binary condition, asshole. If you are asking for justification for it to remain legal, then you are implying that the available alternatives’ existence would otherwise make it illegal, although you haven’t put out any reasoning for this positive proposition, because you’re stupid as fuck.
You’re sure as shit I don’t see it getting rights magically should alternatives become available, since that is fucking retarded. It has no rights at all, and never will, unless it is a PERSON, you stupid asshole! PERSON! If it is, then it has rights and always will. If it is not, then it can’t somehow gain rights with technological advancements, you raging clusterfuck of monstrous stupidity! Remember that whole INALIENABLE rights shit, you fucking moron?
And what am I withstanding? This is highly entertaining, since I have abandoned the tact of trying to convince anyone. I don’t give a shit if you realize why you’re a fucktard, I am just enjoying myself insulting you and mocking you to the greatest extent possible.
marantAZ, I would like to discuss this topic with you as you have pointed out some interesting thoughts. However, because of the children in the room I cannot. I don’t know if they were sent from air amer or kos, but they make it difficult for adults to have an intelligent conversation. If I had my way they would be booted out so that this site would be an interesting place to visit from all sides of the political spectrum. If you know of a place such as this, post an address or something in photos one day and delete it after I get it, when we are both on so I can discuss the topic with you.
JB, I think we can now just ignore the child, as he has told Jeffmogul elsewhere that his intent is to have himself banned. Whatever anyone else might post, I will ignore unless you reference them in your comments. I’d like to hear from you as well.
Mr. p, what can I say? You have shown yourself to be a disgusting arrogant petulent child. Your post in other groups have been nonsensical, I have to believe it was never your intent to be anything more than a clone of 1776 or Decepticon. Someday, with luck, common sense and decency will find parity in your mind with the intellect you (claim to) have. Don’t bother to respond. Or do, who will notice?
marantAZ. it IS his intent but I’m not going to cry. However, because it IS his intent and the other personalities of his, I can not talk about it further on this site. I wish Jeff (I say this out of respect) would realize that kos, air amer, move on, etc. PAY people to ruin good conservative sites. Thinking he is just a sad little boy is very naive. He is either an insane man capable of or has already inflicted, great bodily harm or murder, or a paid undertaker for already listed sites. I would like to talk about this topic further. But not here. In respect to Jeff, he needs to get rid of trouble makers if he wants this site to succeed. I have emailed a whole lotta people, radio talk show hosts, you name it, about this site. It would be nice if it could flourish. One bad apple spoils the bunch. re: mr p and his many personalities. Please trust me on this.
banning decept would be a very good start. if I were someone just looking at this site, I’d leave after seeing his trash. If this is a ruse from libs, it’s working beautifully.
Hahah I am sternly reprimanded by the fellow with the command of nothing but Tom Clancy at his fingertips, who has proclaimed that I am just googling things to talk about them yet cannot demonstrate comparable adeptness with the search engine which should be easy if I am as dumb as he says, but I guess like the asshole he is that he can’t say anything that a chinchilla couldn’t manage. Junebug, of course, remains his best buddy… after all, it’s hot, and anyone talking to her gets the benefit of the free fanning given by her armflaps, as well as delicious sandwich spread from her unholy of unholies. It’s like Abbot and Costello, if one was a gibbering desperate-for-acceptance agnostic retard conservative and the other was a weeping mascara-leaking fido.
Hahah I know you’re lying. I know you’re reading this right now. What’s it like to lie about shit on the internet to make it seem like you don’t care about insults that actually affect you somewhat, you cow?
Hahah that’s right, start recycling. Others might point out it’s a lot smarter just not to respond rather than feeding a troll, but not you! No wisdom or reason or hygiene for you, you walk your own path! Ahahhaa loser!
marantAZ on Aug 19
Come on, you pansies! Can you give me one good reason for continuing to allow abortion on demand? Can you?
It used to be the arguement that life did not begin at conception. Medical science has proven that life does in fact begin at conception; by the division of the one cell into two, life has begun. Being human life, to end that life is murder, or do you have some other definition? While that life may not be sustainable outside of the womb, it is still a viable life form, human by design, and therefore worthy of preservation. Do you disagree? As medical science progresses, we will be able to keep that life form alive and growing outside of the womans womb. Whether willingly or unwillingly conceived, would you still justify the murder of innocent human life as the womans right if it is medically possible to preserve that life outside of her body? If you say no, then you have no reason to justify it now. If you say yes, give me your reasons, if you can.
Finnegan on Aug 20
marant, i’m not sure what is more disturbing, abortion on demand or the thought of a lab full of parentless babies gestating in artificial wombs.
marantAZ on Aug 20
Well, it, like cloning, is going to become a reality, probably sooner than any of us will believe possible.
I know that thought disturbs a lot of people; everyone pictures something like that baby in the compartment from Star Trek that was going to grow up to be one of the Borg, or something like The Matrix, with tubes and disgusting fluids all around. I thought about that, and wanted to generate that kind of thought in your mind; I didn’t want to paint it all rosey and good; there can and will be an ugly side to any progress.
I don’t think we will let it get to that point, at least not legally, but what we will get is frozen embryos waiting for a suitable female host; women who cannot get pregnant on their own will be implanted with the embryo of their choice, possibly even ones that they themselves mothered but were unwilling to carry to term at that particular time in their life. It will then truly be a freedom of choice, to carry to term or to save for another day. But there will no longer be a ‘right’ to terminate. I will go with life, and deal with the potential problems of the future when they arrive.
I would not approve of having a child for the purposes of having a potential donor for an existing sibling who may be ill, as some have already done. Nor would I condone cloning a person simply to grow a donatable organ to the original person. But I would approve of growing an organ in the lab, if possible, to save the life of the original person. Just wanted to clarify those areas, in case anyone was wondering.
mr_phaethon on Aug 20
Well, I am popping in, as I do about every few weeks… it’s good to see QubeTV go exactly the way I predicted… discussion has almost entirely halted, and they have had to reduce themselves to snake-oil advertisements since no one reputable is interested. Only another few months now.
Marant, if you want to make abortion illegal, the burden of proof is on you. Medical science might have “proven” that “life” begins at conception, but we’ve known that for decades. I still would like to hear your proof of why the clump of cells formed a week after conception is a person with rights. It has the potential to be a person in the future, but that does not seem sufficient. I certainly agree it is often “worthy of preservation”, but the mother’s right to have that cluster of cells removed supercedes the hypothetical rights of a future person, in the same way my right to wear a condom with my girlfriend supercedes the hypothetical rights of the future person which might exist if my sperm combined with her ovum and implanted in her uterus. She and I are real people now, and our rights come before hypothetical rights of hypothetical people.
It is medically possible, at least in sound theory, to sustain a zygote outside of the uterus already. It has been for years. That doesn’t give that zygote the rights of a person. By your logic, it is a crime not to raise as many test-tube babies as possible, and all fertilization techniques wherein multiples zygotes are implanted with the knowledge that only one will be able to survive (barring bizarre exceptions) is also a crime, rather than implanting each one at a time so that they have maximum chances to survive. If a zygote has rights as a person, furthermore, and those rights are as full as anyone else’s (which goes without saying, since presumably people are created equal) then the mother should also be prosecuted for aggravated assault if she smokes or drinks.
I am curious: what criminal penalties should be imposed on mothers who smoke or drink, since they are knowingly chemically assaulting a person with rights? If the child has fetal alcohol syndrome, I assume you would prosecute the mother for maiming a person?
I guess you probably didn’t think this out, though.
Finnegan on Aug 21
Marant, I don’t even know where to begin.
You’re ok with woman being implanted with an “embryo of their choice” but you’re not ok with someone getting pregnant naturally to possibly cure a disease in a sibling?
You’re talking about playing God and it’s truly f’ed up and beyond disturbing.
marantAZ on Aug 21
OK, NOW I’M PISSED!!
Nothing you guys said… I had about five paragraphs typed up, hit the wrong key, and poof, ALL GONE! FUCKING QUBETV!!!
There, got that out of my system.
Mr. P, thanks for stopping by. I suspected you would. Next time, bring your girlfriend along. (I actually typed ‘Nest time’, and considered leaving it as is, but that would have been crude of me.)
First, how did you get to the assumption that I wanted to outlaw abortion? I asked IF it were possible to preserve the life outside the womb, would you still want the woman to have the RIGHT to abort? I did not say that I want to outlaw abortion. I didn’t say that I wanted to outlaw anything, I was asking for you (generally speaking) to consider it in those terms, and if you would not agree to it being a right, then how can it be justified now? This is not a question of legallity for the here and now, but for the individual to consider the question.
Now, you did provide some justification in your comments, cluttered as they were. You are correct, you, or more directly, your girlfriend does have rights that come before the potential life that might dwell within her. She has every legal right to abort it if she chooses, and certainly if it threatens her existence. But again, that was not the question, so let me make it more personal for you, maybe you’ll give a direct answer. Would you, Mr. P, give her the right to abort the child if it were just as convenient to remove it and preserve it for the future? Would you prefer for it to be aborted rather than preserved?
(I personally would give her even more right; I would say that she has the right to abort without your consent or knowledge. Unless you have a written agreement to share in the ‘fruits’ of your union, you, in my opinion, should not have any rights to any child, only the financial responsibility to provide for it, because it should be your responsibility to protect yourself from such a possibility. Men have been getting away with this for too long, and it is time to turn the tables. It would probably do more to reduce abortions than anything else has so far.)
As these options were not available in the past, abortion became a political football. Rather than agreeing that it was a last resort, an ugly option, a horrible result of improper conduct (ignorance, rape, etc.), it became the opposite, available on demand, and profitable for its practicioners. Rather than perfecting its methods and efficiency, medical science should have been working to develop alternatives to eliminate its necessity. Conservative are as much, if not more, to blame for this, as their fears of science playing god prevented them from advocating such advances, and they permitted themselves to be painted as anti-everything, not just abortion. But now we are on the verge of making the need to perform abortions obsolete, and I want to know where liberals will likely fall, on the side of life, or a womans ‘right’?
As for your hypothetical person not having any rights, or being an equal to your sperm, that’s ridiculous. First of all, there’s no guarantee that your sperm will successfully impregnate the egg. They could be very poor swimmers. And, without the sperm, the egg is useless, and discarded by the body. Once impregnated, the egg is a human life, at its earliest stages, and should be permitted the chance to survive. Again, if the options are available, this would be preferrable to abortion.
(Does my right to free speech protect me from the hypothetical probability that what I say may offend others? If I chant “nigger” like Michael Richards, does the likely offense others might take become invalid because of my right?)
Your other comments regarding laws were simply not pertinent; you assumed, and we all know what that means, but it doesn’t apply to me here.
Finnegan, would you have a couple, with a terminally ill child, create another child for the purpose of providing a donor to save the ill child? Who’s playing god here? You would have a kidney removed, or part of a liver, just as an example, to provide it to the other child? This child was not created because it was wanted, only part(s) of it. What do you do with the second child if it becomes ill with the same disease, create yet another one? Would you have one born to provide an eye for a child blinded by accident, condemning the second to a life with one eye? Would you have age limits? The first child is 10, or 14, or 20? Create a new child, let it live until the organs are mature enough to support the older child, then force the child to submit to an operation to provide the organ? That, my dear, is not beyond disturbing, that is sick as hell.
mr_phaethon on Aug 21
You began your little challenge demanding to know a reason why there should still be abortion on demand. I thought my conclusions on your position were pretty obvious assumptions.
I have no interest in what you apparently want to talk about: some straw man notion of morality in a “what if” scenario. So, bye I guess.
Finnegan on Aug 22
No Marant, I didn’t say I was supportive of anyone creating life as a medical treatment, I was simply trying to understand your logic, you’re all for playing God in some circumstances and not in others.
I think abortion is murder, I think we can’t even begin to see the ramifications of what happens to a human who’s created in a lab, we have women who go to a dr to get pregnant with a child who will never have a father. It’s all very very disturbing. No, i’m not for abortion, but i’m also not in favor of harvesting unwanted children from the womb to be grown in a lab or purchased by a couple looking for a blond haired blue eyed baby.
marantAZ on Aug 23
Finnegan, sorry if you misunderstood. I would not want to create the child in the lab, I would prefer to stop abortions by removing the life from the woman, preserving it, either for herself for the future, or for others should it be donated, to be adopted by those who are unable to reproduce. I would approve of the organs individually being reproduced (cloned) in a lab, but not growing the whole person for that purpose, either in a lab or naturally.
I don’t think it would be a matter of a couple shopping for an idealic child, more an act of charity or need; I cannot imagine how a woman who is raped could ever want to carry that child to term; abortion is the easy way out of that horribly bad situation. And while I have my own reservations of the behavior of the adult born out of an act of violence (we don’t know if such conduct is a hereditary trait, I mean), if it were possible to preserve it rather than destroy it, I think that is the way we should be going. And, honestly, I feel pretty comfortable with the thought of a bank of preserved humans being available to repopulate the human species should something happen to us or our ability to reproduce. The future is wide open, we really should be prepared for as much as possible. I hope I clarified that better this time. Sorry for the tone last time, the site really pissed me off there.
I’m sure your out there Mr. P, so keep reading. I see now the P should stand for pussy, because that is what you are. You yourself said that the technology now exist, but call my scenario a ‘what if’, and refuse to answer the question of choosing life over abortion. You could not bring yourself to choose life, now or in the future, because that would destroy your defense of abortion now. The fact is that you do not support life, any more than you support the troops, because you hate life, human life anyway, you fear your own existence, and you fear death. You probably think every aborted child was a potentially dangerous Hitler, or even worse, a Conservative, and better off dead. Those are my pretty obvious assumptions to your chicken-shit cut and run bullshit. yeah, bye, I’m done with you.
mr_phaethon on Aug 23
You’re a pretty big fucking idiot, and don’t bother to think any of this out. The technology exists in the same way that the technology to go to Saturn exists, not in a current usable stage. Thus, it is hypothetical, you goddamn moron. We can’t run out and do it now, can we, dipshit?
If a fetus is a person, then abortion is immoral now and we would be obligated to preserve the fetus from the earliest point possible, including the zygote stage. Anything else would be negligent homicide..
If the fetus is not a person, then the woman can choose to get rid of it entirely, preserve it, or whatever. And since I don’t think fetuses are people, that means that logically while it might be nice to transplant to an artificial environment once it becomes viable, it is not a moral choice but rather one of personal preference for the woman.
I swear to christ you are one of the dullest debaters on the face of the earth. You make decyphe look like Enrico Fermi, inasmuch as he is at least capable of logical extrapolation. You do not appear to be able to distinguish potential technology from actual technology in use, or to make a simple jump based upon the hypothetical mores at work in this question. The only person who would be better off dead is you, so that your gibbering I’m-agnostic-oh-golly-please-like-me-guys nonsense would be over and no one would have to read it anymore. Yes, we get it, you insufferable jackass, you’re an agnostic but you’re also conservative. Wow it’s amazing, now shut the hell up about it. Pick up a book on introductory philosophy to occupy yourself now that your constant seeking of validation is done. Fucking moron.
marantAZ on Aug 24
It’s like pulling teeth, but there it is…
“Medical science might have “proven” that “life” begins at conception, but we’ve known that for decades”
“If a fetus is a person, then abortion is immoral now and we would be obligated to preserve the fetus from the earliest point possible, including the zygote stage. Anything else would be negligent homicide..”
“And since I don’t think fetuses are people, that means that logically while it might be nice to transplant to an artificial environment once it becomes viable, it is not a moral choice but rather one of personal preference for the woman.”
Goodness, was that so hard? Rather than attempting to control the direction this exchange would take, if you could have simply said that to begin with, this would have gone much nicer. I believe you have finally answered all the questions. You have agreed life begins at conception, but stated that you do not consider a fetus a person, therefore, to you, the right to abort supercedes the life it represents, and even if it were an option to remove and preserve rather than abort, you would still prefer the woman have the right to abort the life.
You may be bored, but you were interested enough to post a response after a long silence. If you want to control the discussion, seriously, start your own group.
I am quite aware of where our tech lies at this time, my questions were prefaced with the understanding that the science was possible in time, but not now. It was hypothetical, of course, as I asked the questions, but you chose to take the discussion in your own direction. I am of the opinion our science should have been directed to end abortion by coming up with alternatives, and we have failed all those that we have aborted by allowing it to continue. I consider human life that important, whereas even if we had alternatives, you would still allow it to be destroyed, on the whim of the woman. I would not.
Yes, I realize what I am saying; I would authorize the preservation of life even if the woman did not want it to live. And I would permit the government the authority to preserve it. If she does not want to carry it to term, preservation is preferrable to termination.
Now, if you do care to continue, let’s go from here, as I am curious, and if you can actually stimulate some thought in me or anyone else, then this will have served its purpose. If not, just say so.
Others are invited as well.
mr_phaethon on Aug 24
Jesus christ you are a raging maelstrom of stupidfuck.
After I carefully differentiated, you are still stumbling along without clearly defining what the fuck you mean by “human life”. You are like the Idiot Captain of the S.S. Retarded Conservative, embarking on a pleasure cruise to What The Fuck Is Logic Again.
If you believe the “life”, which is to say, zygote, has rights which supercede those of the woman’s to control her body (of which it is part), then it is a goddamn person. Or what, does it have special zygote rights? Where did you get those from, that you decide that even though it doesn’t have the right to live, it still has some other form of right to life wherein it should still be preserved despite the wishes of the owner? Is there some sort of Zygote Theorist I’m not aware of, dumbshit, or did you just not think of that?
It would save time if you just bit a bullet, you raging assclown. I swear, your thought process has the motility of a drunken sack of molasses, and just as much swiftness. Fucking define your terms, idiot: does the zygote have rights, or not? If it does, how the fuck do you justify allowing it to be killed? If it does not, how the fuck do you justify giving it the right to survive? It’s amazing you’re still alive at all, I’d have expected you to have cut yourself on a spoon with this level of ineptness.
marantAZ on Aug 24
“Well, there you go again.”
So, was that a no? oh well.
Look at how easily he was prompted into commonality with Liberal1776, Decepto, and other liberal attack dogs. One paragraph has put him into an uncontrollable fury. He not only continues to vomit here, he took to attacking others in their groups, profanities and vulgar descriptions of human anatomy being used to attack people he does not know, and claimed not to be familiar with, as this site is beneath him. Clearly, he’s been ‘popping in’ quite often. He went off on an immature tirade because I challenged him to simply answer the questions asked rather than avoid them (a tactic no doubt learned from years of watching liberal pundits on TV talk shows – shout louder than the opponent until they give up). Must have hit a nerve there, huh?
So, was his outburst because I pointed out that he has less respect for human life than I, or Conservatives, or the religious, who he takes such delight in denigrating? Or was it because I accused him of being unable to answer the questions because he could not think of a way to answer the questions without admitting that abortion is wrong? Or was it the fearing life and death thing? Actually, I don’t really want to know, I’m still laughing about the ‘please like me even though I’m not like you’ crap… you have no idea how funny that was…. to someone who has been called a loner, a hermit, a psycho, antisocial, mean and cold, all his life, that was hilarious. just so you know, like the Jehovahs, I have a limit on the number I allow into my little slice of heaven … and I’m already at maximum capacity …
He continuously attempts to impress us with his supposed knowledge; in an age when anyone can google or yahoo or ask anything online and get so much information, claims of knowledge are like million selling albums, ho hum. You have to show what you know makes a difference in you, otherwise, your knowledge is useless.
So, what part of this did he not understand: “You have agreed life begins at conception, but stated that you do not consider a fetus a person, therefore, to you, the right to abort supercedes the life it represents, and even if it were an option to remove and preserve rather than abort, you would still prefer the woman have the right to abort the life.”, and “I would authorize the preservation of life even if the woman did not want it to live. And I would permit the government the authority to preserve it. If she does not want to carry it to term, preservation is preferrable to termination.”?
Did that not spell it out for him? I would grant the potential human life the right to life, as the technology makes it possible to do so. ‘Zygote Rights’... could become a big money maker for the lawyers. Until the tech gets us to that point, abortion is going to be with us, whether legal or not (I suspect it will remain legal until such time.) Not my personal preference, but like I said, we have failed those we aborted by our failure to work for the preservation of life, and we will continue to do so.
How will we get there? The abortion fight itself is over, ladies and gentlemen. There isn’t any alternative for the majority of women who get pregnant and do not want to be. We can preach abstinance, we can encourage prevention and safety, but it’s still going to happen, and it’s going to happen to those that cannot afford or care for the child. If the woman is willing to carry to term, great, hopefully, someone will adopt it. But the reality is that it doesn’t happen often enough.
We have to allow science to find another way, and that may also require some things you might not like to happen.
Stem cell research has been promising in many areas, and may be all that is necessary to get us there; but what if embryonic stem cells hold the key to ending abortion, among other things, and we refuse to allow them to be utilized? How long will you allow this to go on? Hasn’t it been long enough?
mr_phaethon on Aug 24
That was a fuck of a lot of text to say that you were entirely fucking wrong and didn’t bother to actually think it out. And if googling worked for this kind of shit, then you wouldn’t be so fucking stupid, now would you? You have access to google too, although for that matter you also have access to science and philosophy books and you don’t use them either.
Oh I see you are turning the discussion to me and to concluding since you realized that you’re dumb as shit. And you guys dont fucking deserve any effort in debate, since I tried that and was rebuffed by people being rude as shit. So fuck you and the rest of you, this is solely for my amusement now.
You are just as stupid as shit on the sole of my shoe. If the zygote has RIGHTS, then why do you get to ABORT it?! You stupid fucking moron, you are claiming the zygote has rights that supercede those of the mother to determine its fate, so why the fuck do you still get to kill it if you choose? It’s either a person or a part of the woman, it can’t be both! Which is it, you stupid asshole?
marantAZ on Aug 24
I would suggest cleaning your shoes off before coming into the house, assuming of course you are using your own computer. For the last time, it was you not I that said anything about making abortion illegal. I asked for justification for it to remain legal if alternatives were available. Follow along, understand what you are reading. Again it was asked if the alternatives exist, would you still abort. You said you would. I never said that it should not be legal now, just asked how would you justify it now if you would not permit it in the future. You chose to permit it regardless of the alternatives. You chose not to allow life to live if the woman does not want it to in spite of an alternative to abortion, and you stated that it does not have rights; I guess you fail to see the possibility of it having rights should alternatives become available. I could not have said or admit I was wrong, because there are no wrong questions, only incomplete answers, which you provided along with your own assumptions as to my position to base your accusations and questions on; you were so busy jumping to conclusions, no doubt because of your hatred for Conservatives. Now, since you’ve apparently gone completely off your rocker, I think it’s time for you to re-examine yourself, I suspect you have not yet regained the stamina to withstand this. That is almost an exact quote of your words prior to your first leaving, in case you forgot.
mr_phaethon on Aug 25
“it was you not I that said anything about making abortion illegal. I asked for justification for it to remain legal if alternatives were available”
You’re such an ignorant and stupid fuck. The alternative to it being legal is that it is illegal, since it’s a binary condition, asshole. If you are asking for justification for it to remain legal, then you are implying that the available alternatives’ existence would otherwise make it illegal, although you haven’t put out any reasoning for this positive proposition, because you’re stupid as fuck.
You’re sure as shit I don’t see it getting rights magically should alternatives become available, since that is fucking retarded. It has no rights at all, and never will, unless it is a PERSON, you stupid asshole! PERSON! If it is, then it has rights and always will. If it is not, then it can’t somehow gain rights with technological advancements, you raging clusterfuck of monstrous stupidity! Remember that whole INALIENABLE rights shit, you fucking moron?
And what am I withstanding? This is highly entertaining, since I have abandoned the tact of trying to convince anyone. I don’t give a shit if you realize why you’re a fucktard, I am just enjoying myself insulting you and mocking you to the greatest extent possible.
JuneBug on Aug 26
marantAZ, I would like to discuss this topic with you as you have pointed out some interesting thoughts. However, because of the children in the room I cannot. I don’t know if they were sent from air amer or kos, but they make it difficult for adults to have an intelligent conversation. If I had my way they would be booted out so that this site would be an interesting place to visit from all sides of the political spectrum. If you know of a place such as this, post an address or something in photos one day and delete it after I get it, when we are both on so I can discuss the topic with you.
mr_phaethon on Aug 26
oh holy shit am I stopping your discussion and making this site a difficult place to use? that is not at all my intention I am going to go cry
marantAZ on Aug 27
JB, I think we can now just ignore the child, as he has told Jeffmogul elsewhere that his intent is to have himself banned. Whatever anyone else might post, I will ignore unless you reference them in your comments. I’d like to hear from you as well.
Mr. p, what can I say? You have shown yourself to be a disgusting arrogant petulent child. Your post in other groups have been nonsensical, I have to believe it was never your intent to be anything more than a clone of 1776 or Decepticon. Someday, with luck, common sense and decency will find parity in your mind with the intellect you (claim to) have. Don’t bother to respond. Or do, who will notice?
JuneBug on Aug 27
marantAZ. it IS his intent but I’m not going to cry. However, because it IS his intent and the other personalities of his, I can not talk about it further on this site. I wish Jeff (I say this out of respect) would realize that kos, air amer, move on, etc. PAY people to ruin good conservative sites. Thinking he is just a sad little boy is very naive. He is either an insane man capable of or has already inflicted, great bodily harm or murder, or a paid undertaker for already listed sites. I would like to talk about this topic further. But not here. In respect to Jeff, he needs to get rid of trouble makers if he wants this site to succeed. I have emailed a whole lotta people, radio talk show hosts, you name it, about this site. It would be nice if it could flourish. One bad apple spoils the bunch. re: mr p and his many personalities. Please trust me on this.
JuneBug on Aug 27
banning decept would be a very good start. if I were someone just looking at this site, I’d leave after seeing his trash. If this is a ruse from libs, it’s working beautifully.
mr_phaethon on Aug 28
Hahah I am sternly reprimanded by the fellow with the command of nothing but Tom Clancy at his fingertips, who has proclaimed that I am just googling things to talk about them yet cannot demonstrate comparable adeptness with the search engine which should be easy if I am as dumb as he says, but I guess like the asshole he is that he can’t say anything that a chinchilla couldn’t manage. Junebug, of course, remains his best buddy… after all, it’s hot, and anyone talking to her gets the benefit of the free fanning given by her armflaps, as well as delicious sandwich spread from her unholy of unholies. It’s like Abbot and Costello, if one was a gibbering desperate-for-acceptance agnostic retard conservative and the other was a weeping mascara-leaking fido.
JuneBug on Aug 28
sorry, mrP, no longer reading your posts. good luck elsewhere
mr_phaethon on Aug 28
Hahah I know you’re lying. I know you’re reading this right now. What’s it like to lie about shit on the internet to make it seem like you don’t care about insults that actually affect you somewhat, you cow?
JuneBug on Aug 29
sorry, mrP, no longer reading your posts. good luck elsewhere
mr_phaethon on Aug 29
Hahah that’s right, start recycling. Others might point out it’s a lot smarter just not to respond rather than feeding a troll, but not you! No wisdom or reason or hygiene for you, you walk your own path! Ahahhaa loser!