- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: The next time a pro-abortion zealot denies that status, show them this.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:32 pm to EKG
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:32 pm to EKG
quote:
That’s the point whereby the two sides will never meet.
In truth, it’s about both.
One side doesn’t want to conserve life, whilst the other won’t cease trying to force morality.
I don't agree. "Conserving life" takes meaning from individual morality.
quote:
Unless both sides recognize and accept the wisdom of the recent SCOTUS decision (e.g., let the states decide), it’s an insurmountable ideological gap.
I generally prefer individual rights, but the SCOTUS decision was at least a step in the right direction.
1
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:33 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Indeed. I don't know anyone worth listening to who would consider a zygote or an embryo a person.
Damn it. I’m not getting drawn in. You bastard!
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:34 pm to roadGator
quote:
In before “I answer the questions you just understand or like the answers “.
Come on, man.
You forgot "I ignore useless questions."
Also:
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:34 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It's a discussion forum...so everyone, I suppose.
When playing dumb goes too far...
quote:
Indeed. I don't know anyone worth listening to who would consider a zygote or an embryo a person.
How would you define person, then?
quote:
And what tells them that it's wrong from conception?
I'm sorry, I was assuming I was talking to someone who agreed that it's generally wrong to kill people. If we don't consider people have the right to life then I guess it doesn't matter when personhood begins when discussing the morality of ending a life.
This post was edited on 9/29/22 at 10:38 pm
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:34 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Damn it. I’m not getting drawn in. You bastard!
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:37 pm to Azkiger
quote:
When playing dumb goes too far...
Boring.
quote:
How would you define person, then?
Let's just start with not a zygote or embryo. Do you disagree?
quote:
I'm sorry, I was assuming I was talking to someone who agreed that it's generally wrong to kill people.
Well, you were wrong, weren't you?
As I said before, there are plenty of circumstances where it's acceptable to kill people.
Unless you're a weirdo hippie. Are you a weirdo hippie?
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
"Conserving life" takes meaning from individual morality.
That’s false.
Conserving life is the obverse of destroying it.
It isn’t a morality issue; it’s rooted in measurable outcomes.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:40 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Unless you're a weirdo hippie. Are you a weirdo hippie?
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:41 pm to EKG
quote:
That’s false.
No, it isn't.
The only reason there's an attempt to "conserve life" is that it's considered immoral to take it. It isn't even "conserving life." More accurately, it's "conserving specific life."
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:41 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Let's just start with not a zygote or embryo. Do you disagree?
I'd answer your question if you'd have answered mine. You could have both given your definition AND asked what my stance on the issue is. Yet you chose to ignore my question and pose one of your own. In your own words.
quote:
Boring.
quote:
As I said before, there are plenty of circumstances where it's acceptable to kill people.
Hence the word "generally". Do I really have to list the dozens of different situations that cover which cases killing is and is not appropriate before we can pass this pointless diversion?
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:43 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Still equally human. Was then, are now, assuming she’s still with us hopefully.
And now we aren't.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:45 pm to Azkiger
quote:
I'd answer your question if you'd have answered mine. You could have both given your definition AND asked what my stance on the issue is. Yet you chose to ignore my question and pose one of your own. In your own words.
I answered your question. Let me do so again:
Let's just start with not a zygote or embryo.
quote:
Hence the word "generally". Do I really have to list the dozens of different situations that cover which cases killing is and is not appropriate before we can pass this pointless diversion?
Nope, you just need to concede the point that there's nothing inherently wrong with taking a human life. From there, we just disagree where to draw the line.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:45 pm to llfshoals
quote:
Still equally human.
Human? Yes.
Equally? No.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:46 pm to Azkiger
Dodging is what he does. Just keep on the original point.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:47 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
That makes no sense, DB.
For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction.
Which doesn’t mean it’s false to state not killing a child is simply an issue of morality.
We’re now debating semantics—which I’ve learnt over the years is something you appreciate (as do I).
Take care.
For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction.
Which doesn’t mean it’s false to state not killing a child is simply an issue of morality.
We’re now debating semantics—which I’ve learnt over the years is something you appreciate (as do I).
Take care.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:49 pm to llfshoals
quote:
Dodging is what he does. Just keep on the original point.
Just to make sure this doesn't go unaddressed, this is what ol' boy considers "dodging."
quote:quote:
llfshoals
quote:
Each is an individual member of the species.
And?
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I answered your question.
No, you gave me a list of things that a person is not. That's not a definition.
You said earlier that anyone who thinks a zygote is a person isn't worth listening to. What do you think of people who are very opinionated yet don't even understand the purpose of a definition?
quote:
Nope, you just need to concede the point that there's nothing inherently wrong with taking a human life. From there, we just disagree where to draw the line.
In order to concede that point, it needs to be rationed. So far all you've demonstrated is you don't know how definitions are formulated.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:51 pm to EKG
quote:
That makes no sense, DB.
Where's the confusion.
You seem to be arguing that it's simply a utilitarian view. I'm saying that it isn't. For most, it can't be.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:52 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Sorry, despite your delusions of grandeur you’re homo sapiens, not homo superior.
Human? Yes. Equally? No.
Posted on 9/29/22 at 10:54 pm to Azkiger
quote:
No, you gave me a list of things that a person is not. That's not a definition.
Correct. I'm sure you have access to a dictionary. I figure you're capable of a more interesting discussion.
quote:
You said earlier that anyone who thinks a zygote is a person isn't worth listening to. What do you think of people who are very opinionated yet don't even understand the purpose of a definition?
I think it's uninteresting to pretend we don't know the definition of "person." What we really need to understand is how we think that applies to this discussion.
quote:
In order to concede that point, it needs to be rationed.
Done.
Back to you.
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News