ex-boyfriend puts up abortion billboard

[JohnOfSheffield]

So it has no potential to become a child?[/QUOTE.]

Well so do most cells given todays tech, should we have them all or just every child for every spermie? Or how should we do it?

Is it a child at fertilisation because if it is, ALL methods but male barrier are out the question, is it a child when it's miscarried and not even fucking noticed but more of a period? (wait, i'm a cannibal?)

The consequence would be a pregnancy that the woman has to deal with in any way she sees fit.

You still won't get a say about her body.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

We used to be leaders of the free world, now we are willing to sell out our own women as slaves for the government to have it's say about?

It will take changing the foundations of the UK law to even allow for it, in essence, the UK has to be dissolved before it can happen.

It's not going to happen son, and the lots of you misogynistic cunts can sit on your dildos and shut up for at least 30 more years as you have done up until now. You don't get a say on who has any rights in a democratic society, not without giving up your own.

I don't know what you're arguing with me about here, but I'll explain my last comment since unsurprisingly, it seems to have gone over your head. HalTard is not the only Brit embarrassing your fair shores; the implication was that you are the other one.

As for the remainder of your drivel, Empire is not democracy. Leaders of the "free" world, never. You'd still be an empire if you could. The only reason you're not is because everywhere you conquered conquered your asses back. If it wasn't for us, your country would have been bombed off the map 70 years ago. You are now the more like America's stodgy old butler. Seig Heil!

I still find it funny how we agree so much, yet you act so disagreeable. I'm more of an anarchist than anyone who would want to tell anyone what they can and can't do.

Son? LMFAO

 

[HAL9000]

Well so do most cells given todays tech, should we have them all or just every child for every spermie? Or how should we do it?

Is it a child at fertilisation because if it is, ALL methods but male barrier are out the question, is it a child when it's miscarried and not even fucking noticed but more of a period?

The consequence would be a pregnancy that the woman has to deal with in any way she sees fit.

You still won't get a say about her body.

It's a potential child. All the way.

The woman shouldn't have the right to "deal with" the pregnancy in any way she sees fit.

I thought you had given up?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

It's a potential child. All the way.

The woman shouldn't have the right to "deal with" the pregnancy in any way she sees fit.

I thought you had given up?

Please outline your entire ethical foundation for this position. You keep stating your opinion without any kind of impetus for it. Stop being so shallow. If you really have a degree in philosophy as you claim, prove it. Write something. Convince me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's a potential child. All the way.

The woman shouldn't have the right to "deal with" the pregnancy in any way she sees fit.

I thought you had given up?

Well if a spermie meets an egg, it'll be a child so i suppose every spermie is a potential child too by that definition.

heh, i rarely give up, i actually thought you were more intelligent and wouldn't resort to word plays to make a non existant point.

My first post about legality, biology and common sense still stands as a shining beacon ready for you to accept some common sense anytime you like.

But i'll be going to bed, big day tomorrow, you'll read all about it i'm sure.

Just so you know it, if you are thinking about suicide... probably a good idea, tell her all about it too.

 

[HAL9000]

Please outline your entire ethical foundation for this position. You keep stating your opinion without any kind of impetus for it. Stop being so shallow. If you really have a degree in philosophy as you claim, prove it. Write something. Convince me.

OK dude. Wow.

Life is the foundation for everything in existence, good or bad. Living creatures are responsible for all pleasure and all plain on the planet, with the exception of natural disasters.

Life therefore deserves respect.

Human life has far more potential than the life of other animals, as can be seen with the progression of man kind.

Human life therefore therefore deserves the most respect.

Something that can become human life deserves more respect than other inanimate objects.

Sperm and egg both have the potential to become human life, but that being said not on their own they need an action to spark the production of new cells, sex.

After sex human life will begin to grown in a woman's womb, at this point, with no intervention from any external source (external to the embryo) human life will begin to take shape, it is at this point where an inanimate object has the greatest potential to become human life, it is greater than that of a sperm or egg as it can do it when left alone.

Yes the woman needs to be kept alive, as the woman would do anyway but aside from that those cluster of cells will begin to grow, using the material it has available to it in the woman's body.

Given that this point has the greatest potential (though not absolute) to become a human being it deserves the most respect, below the respect given to complete human life.

That respect is paramount, that respect gives the cells rights to some degree, though they do not outweigh the right to the woman's life they do have rights none-the less.

Killing those cells, denying them their rights, is wrong, based on the system of respect for life I am arguing for.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I don't know what you're arguing with me about here, but I'll explain my last comment since unsurprisingly, it seems to have gone over your head. HalTard is not the only Brit embarrassing your fair shores; the implication was that you are the other one.

As for the remainder of your drivel, Empire is not democracy. Leaders of the "free" world, never. You'd still be an empire if you could. The only reason you're not is because everywhere you conquered conquered your asses back. If it wasn't for us, your country would have been bombed off the map 70 years ago. You are now the more like America's stodgy old butler. Seig Heil!

I still find it funny how we agree so much, yet you act so disagreeable. I'm more of an anarchist than anyone who would want to tell anyone what they can and can't do.

Son? LMFAO

You know what, i'll NEVER piggyback again, it's the third time i've done so, third time it was taken wrongly and third time i've had to explain it.

That said, the US has never given any fuck about anyone but the US, it took a declaration of war to get you involved in the largest mass murder in history of mankind, we were there from the start.

So don't pride yourselves on anything but trying to save your own selves as you have always done.

That said, i wasn't arguing with you in the first place you daft twat.

 

[Red Dawn]

That said, the US has never given any fuck about anyone but the US, it took a declaration of war to get you involved in the largest mass murder in history of mankind, we were there from the start.

So don't pride yourselves on anything but trying to save your own selves as you have always done.

That said, i wasn't arguing with you in the first place you daft twat.

Yeah we weren't sending over millions of tons od supplies to you and Russia before we were attacked.

:whiste:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

So it has no potential to become a child?

I did not say that.

So what both have consequences.

A person does not owe a duty for the consequences of actions which are not negligent, by definition. Negligence is the dereliction of a duty owed to someone. Liability is only the consequence of negligence.

This is why when I say you are ignorant, I'm not just insulting you. You are ignorant.

 

[HAL9000]

A person does not owe a duty for the consequences of actions which are not negligent, by definition. Negligence is the dereliction of a duty owed to someone. Liability is only the consequence of negligence.

Where are you getting this from?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The consequences should have to be birth, because having an abotion is not enough punishment for the crime of having sex.

I added on the conclusion of that sentence that I see every time someone tries to make that argument. Requiring people to accept avoidable consequence is really just another way of saying punish.

Choosing to have act is choosing to accept the consequences of your actions, if it's pregnancy, it's pregnancy, if it's an STD it's an STD. If it's a relationship, it's a relationship.

No, you only are required to accept the consequences until they are mitagatable. Do you think that you should be forced to stay forever with the first person that you have sex with? Of course not, because you understand that consequences can be mitigated.

It should. If his eviction is an execution, then you should not have that right.

And this is where the fundamental disagreement occurs. You are convinced that a person has a absolute right to life, I (and many others) believe that a person only has the right to fight to stay alive. Those two things are not the same.

The absolute right to life, while idealistically utopian, is unsustainable in real life. There are just too many situations where it is unrealistic. This is one of them.


You are getting a lot of ugly remarks aimed at you because you are too closed minded. You are being given good arguments against your position but instead of thinking about and addressing those arguments you are falling back on unsupportable positions and re-espousing them with no regard to earlier refutations. It is the sign of unthinking fanaticism, and is very frustrating to people willing to actually think about the issues.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Where are you getting this from?

The law.

For example: "In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/negligence

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK dude. Wow.

Life is the foundation for everything in existence, good or bad. Living creatures are responsible for all pleasure and all plain on the planet, with the exception of natural disasters.

Life therefore deserves respect.

Human life has far more potential than the life of other animals, as can be seen with the progression of man kind.

Human life therefore therefore deserves the most respect.

Something that can become human life deserves more respect than other inanimate objects.

Sperm and egg both have the potential to become human life, but that being said not on their own they need an action to spark the production of new cells, sex.

After sex human life will begin to grown in a woman's womb, at this point, with no intervention from any external source (external to the embryo) human life will begin to take shape, it is at this point where an inanimate object has the greatest potential to become human life, it is greater than that of a sperm or egg as it can do it when left alone.

Yes the woman needs to be kept alive, as the woman would do anyway but aside from that those cluster of cells will begin to grow, using the material it has available to it in the woman's body.

Given that this point has the greatest potential (though not absolute) to become a human being it deserves the most respect, below the respect given to complete human life.

That respect is paramount, that respect gives the cells rights to some degree, though they do not outweigh the right to the woman's life they do have rights none-the less.

Killing those cells, denying them their rights, is wrong, based on the system of respect for life I am arguing for.

This is what you get with a 3-year "degree" in Philosophy.

If I didn't believe that your ignorance was entirely the fault of yourself, I'd suggest demanding a refund from whatever institution graduated you.

 

[SMOGZINN]

OK dude. Wow.

Life is the foundation for everything in existence, good or bad. Living creatures are responsible for all pleasure and all plain on the planet, with the exception of natural
disasters.

Agreed.

Life therefore deserves respect.

Does not follow. By your first statement life creates bad as well as good. That does not lay a foundation for respect. But, I am going to continue because I don't think it is critical to the argument since I agree with the basic point.

Human life has far more potential than the life of other animals, as can be seen with the progression of man kind.

Agreed

Human life therefore therefore deserves the most respect.

Now respect is based on potential? Do we give natural disasters more respect then humans, they after all have as much or more potential. But once again, I pass this over because the basic point is solid, even if your reasoning behind it is not.

Something that can become human life deserves more respect than other inanimate objects.

Not supported, see natural disaster arguement. But once again, the point is valid.

sperm and egg both have the potential to become human life, but that being said not on their own they need an action to spark the production of new cells, sex.

Okay.

After sex human life will begin to grown in a woman's womb, at this point, with no intervention from any external source (external to the embryo) human life will begin to take shape, it is at this point where an inanimate object has the greatest potential to become human life, it is greater than that of a sperm or egg as it can do it when left alone.

Both had the same potential before they met. Potential didn't change, only circumstance. Also, both the sperm and egg are animate, they are not sentient, and neither is the zygote.
Life will not start to take shape with no external source. Put that zygote in a jar and nothing will happen. Let the woman carrying it not produce the correct hormones and nothing will happen. Have the woman be undernurished and nothing will happen. There is a shitload of outside influences required for that zygote to become a blastocyst, it does not do it on it's own, it needs the mothers body to send it the right signals. Blocking some of those is how some types of birth control work.

Yes the woman needs to be kept alive, as the woman would do anyway but aside from that those cluster of cells will begin to grow, using the material it has available to it in the woman's body.

This refutes your last point. The zygote either needs no intervention or it does, it can't be both. At this is point your argument isn't even internally consistent.

Given that this point has the greatest potential (though not absolute) to become a human being it deserves the most respect, below the respect given to complete human life.

No, there are many more stages in which, if it makes it to those stages, it gets even more potential.

That respect is paramount, that respect gives the cells rights to some degree, though they do not outweigh the right to the woman's life they do have rights none-the less.

Why? There is nothing in your argument supporting that this is the point it becomes paramount. There are many other stages that it goes though before it becomes anything even remotely human. The law has choosen one of those stages to consider it to have rights, your argument needs to show why it should be an earlier one, this one does not.

Killing those cells, denying them their rights, is wrong, based on the system of respect for life I am arguing for.

Once again, no. Your argument creates a purely arbitrary cut-off point for when you consider something important. It is not based on science or reason, this exact same argument could be made by just adding stages in which it gains even more 'respect' and is even more human until the child graduates primary school. (okay, maybe a slight exaggeration, but certainly until birth.)

 

[Darwin333]

Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right to occupy the body of an unwilling person. Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right inject hormones and waste into another person without that person's consent. Nobody -- no person, nor fetus -- has the right to forcibly respirate and nourish themselves from another person's bloodstream without that person's consent.

It's her body, and if she doesn't want it occupied by an unwelcome intruder, she has the unqualified right to evict it.

Not that I have a dog in this hunt but I have a question in response to the above post.

Do you think a person should be able to force another to use their body for labor so that that person may share in the gains from that labor?

 

[Blackjack200]

Four races tonight (six boats): 4th, 3rd, 1st, 2nd for ten points and tied for first overall on the night! WOOHOO!!! :biggrin:

Three races last night (six boats): 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, tied for second overall on the night. Not bad, wanted first though.

No more sailing 'till Tuesday

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Do you think a person should be able to force another to use their body for labor so that that person may share in the gains from that labor?

No, we made slavery illegal for good reason.

 

[umbrella39]

Link to pic of billboard
http://newmexicoindependent.com/701...exico-backs-away-from-anti-abortion-billboard

I call shens, no one has ever slept with the thing on that billboard.