- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nebraska: Women overwhelmed with joy and in tears, after abortion ban bill fails
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:04 pm to burger bearcat
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:04 pm to burger bearcat
Sick but not surprising.
0
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:14 pm to LRB1967
quote:
under the influence of a demonic Jezebel spirit
Ishtar has returned, and she is not happy.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:19 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
A pre-sapient organism HAS no “will,” and (under any reasonable analysis) few “rights.”. By contrast, the pregnant woman has both.
Under what reason should any human have any rights under your nihilistic moral code?
In your worldview, for what reason can we not just mass genocide other humans we find less desirable? Serious philosophical question? I don't understand where your moral code comes from, considering your willingness to label a human child a "pre-sapient organism", it my as well just be a f*cking weed growing out of a sidewalk.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:20 pm to rhar61
quote:
What happens to it if it isn't killed?
Well in most cases forms into a baby and is delivered obviously. That doesn’t mean what it is in the moment however, and because one day it will form a baby doesn’t mean that currently it is one.
An embryo has no conscious, no "soul", etc. It simply exists. Because one day it will is not an argument
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:21 pm to burger bearcat
Now God
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:23 pm to tigerbait3488
quote:
Not a good looking woman in the group
It is Nebraska-- don't get your hopes up too high.
What's surprising is that there's nary a person of color-- woman, man or interstitial-- in that picture. Nebraska is desperately in need of diversity
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:24 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Well in most cases forms into a baby and is delivered obviously
At what moment does it become a baby?
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:24 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
When bitches decide to abort, men can't stop them.
You’re right. That’s not what I was referring to though. He keeps going off on what whores they are etc but they are only half the equation. And to your point don’t think there aren’t guys that haven’t pressured women into getting an abortion.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:26 pm to burger bearcat
quote:
At what moment does it become a baby?
No clue. I’m not advocating for late term abortions anyway though
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
rather than showing a woman taking a pill to rid herself with the 512 cell blastocyst
What’s the golden number of cells to where a human is of moral significance to you? This seems as arbitrary a metric as any.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:29 pm to burger bearcat
quote:don’t use words you don’t understand.
nihilistic moral code?
in a perfect world, legal rights would vest with consciousness/sapience, but neither notion is a binary toggle switch. Both develop gradually.
So, you pick a point LONG before anyone could make a reasoned argument that either exists. once rights vest, it should not be possible to remove them without due process.
quote:Or any other non-sapient organism. Agreed, as far as the vesting of legal rights in the organism itself.
it my as well just be a f*cking weed growing out of a sidewalk.
You think that 23 chromosome pairs make our species “special.”. I do not share that sentiment. It is the ability to REASON which does so. An embryo lacks that trait.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
You think that 23 chromosome pairs make our species “special.”. I do not share that sentiment. It is the ability to REASON which does so. An embryo lacks that trait.
I think it’s entirely fair to say the capacity to engage in rational thought is what bestows moral significance, but you seem to think if that capacity cannot be realized in this exact moment at present then moral significance is not present. This would seem to call into question the moral significance of any human in various states of unconsciousness.
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 6:35 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:35 pm to Ross
quote:Agreed. When addressing traits which develop over time, a search for some “objective metric” is utterly futile. It is a search for a biological answer to a philosophical question.quote:What’s the golden number of cells to where a human is of moral significance to you? This seems as arbitrary a metric as any.
rather than showing a woman taking a pill to rid herself with the 512 cell blastocyst
So you pick a number that enough people see as being “reasonable.”
Ony a VERY tiny minority sees “6 weeks” as being that number.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:36 pm to AggieHank86
I will say it again. You are truly a shitty human being.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:36 pm to AggieHank86
You and I differ in our definition of “reasonable” if all it takes to say you are utilizing reason is a majority consensus.
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:38 pm to AggieHank86
If the ability to REASON is the standard, we could abort about 75% of the population.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:38 pm to Ross
quote:
What’s the golden number of cells to where a human is of moral significance to you? This seems as arbitrary a metric as any.
OK, How about we all agree to a heart beat? Let's see which of the loudmouths on this thread remain silent like COWARDS
This post was edited on 4/30/23 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:39 pm to Ross
quote:Which ignores my point about not removing legal rights without due process, once they have vested.
This would seem to call into question the moral significance of any human in various states of unconsciousness.
I see no reason to infringe upon the self determination rights of a pregnant woman in order to protect some as-yet-unvested rights in an embryo. It strikes me as being illogical in the extreme.
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
So, you pick a point LONG before anyone could make a reasoned argument that either exists. once rights vest, it should not be possible to remove them without due process.
Ok, when is that moment?
quote:
It is the ability to REASON which does so
What level.of reasoning is satisfactory to you? Cam a newborn infant reason? Can a mentally retarded person reason? Can a person in comatose reason?
You struggle delineating a cut-off point, In your words when "sapience begins, and sapience ends"
Posted on 4/30/23 at 6:42 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Which ignores my point about not removing legal rights without due process, once they have vested.
I don’t think a conversation about moral significance is the same conversation as a conversation as to what legal rights one is afforded.
Page 5 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News