Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 21 of 26
Quote:"You're really not going to discuss your faulty argument anymore? Shall I conclude I won?" -- Rue (Ibid.)
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
"the only people in this thread that have talked about winning any argument is Rue ... certainly Rue"
I have NEVER talked about winning an argument in this thread. Please feel free to quote me and prove your point, or be considered a liar.
Quote:Also this is not true. I’ve already answered the question, as I understand it. Just because you rephrase a point and ask it over and over again, doesn’t mean you’ve come up with a new point.
Originally posted by rue:
BTW, that is the argument Finn is desperately avoiding by refusing to answer the placenta question.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll take it for 'em
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
What I want to know from these guys is what kind of murder, abortion should be. First degree? Second? Man-slaughter?
.Abortion should be prosecuted the same as if you viciously killed a child by beating it to death- the book, the WHOLE thing- thrown HARD!
Because GOD KNOWS with all the KILLING in war, the STARVING and RAPING and KILLING and ABUSE world-wide of WOMEN and CHILDREN, the outcome for bunches of cells (potential future peeps) must be of paramount importance. The sick and injured orphans of war can fend for themselves, but who advocates for the poor ones who are not yet in the world(or conscious of it)?
We must let Darfur continue on it's own and pour all our energies into protecting the future people who are NOT YET in agony.
Once they're born...THEN we can forget about them.
Chrisisallsnark
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
"You're really not going to discuss your faulty argument anymore? Shall I conclude I won?" -- Rue
AH, that's right. I missed that one. And the point of this was ???
You say you've already answered the question. Perhaps I missed that one too. So you wouldn't mind cutting and pasting the answer - how would you feel about flushing a placenta down the toilet? (or slightly different words). But however worded, I'm asking SPECIFICALLY about the placenta.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't think Finn would be down with that 'cause, you know...clog.
Originally posted by rue:
how would you feel about flushing a placenta down the toilet?
Deep Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha Ha ha ha ha ha .... snort .. ha ha ha ha ha he hee hee hee hee .... : wipes tears from eyes :
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Swenyways Finn,
I'd still like to know. I can see the point ChrisIsAll made about not wanting to flush a placenta down the toilet.
So, would you
1) give it a funeral and burial
or
2) have it disposed of as medical waste?
Just a placenta mind you - nothing else.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That did come actually to mind, but really I think there is a public sewer issue with flushing biological waste. Maybe there is a placentae exception clause, I don’t know.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I don't think Finn would be down with that 'cause, you know...clog.
I kind of thought this whole placenta question was rhetorical. I didn't actually think that anyone was going to demand an answer to it.
The issue came up in concordance with the argument that the embryo doesn’t always develop, and sometimes all that does develop is a placenta, from which was implied that the intended result of fertilization is a placenta alone. But if you believe that the purpose of fertilization is to produce offspring, then how do you argue that the intended result of that fertilization is a placenta without an embryo? At the very least it seems inconsistent; it seems infinitely more plausible that the lack of an embryo was just a ‘dud’ (for lack of a better term). If you don't believe that the purpose of fertilization is to produce offspring, then what is it for? Producing sole placentae?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Neither. I would go with option three:
3) Allow the hospital to take care of it for me. Because I know the hospital will give it a proper Irish Catholic burial.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What the heck are you talking about, Finn? Who "intends" anything about fertilization? Whose "purpose" are you talking about?
The issue came up in concordance with the argument that the embryo doesn’t always develop, and sometimes all that does develop is a placenta, from which was implied that the intended result of fertilization is a placenta alone. But if you believe that the purpose of fertilization is to produce offspring, then how do you argue that the intended result of that fertilization is a placenta without an embryo? At the very least it seems inconsistent; it seems infinitely more plausible that the lack of an embryo was just a ‘dud’ (for lack of a better term). If you don't believe that the purpose of fertilization is to produce offspring, then what is it for? Producing sole placentae?
I said before that both you and DT are idealists. I'm supposing that your explanation for a fetus not developing is that it wasn't "meant (by who?) to be" and therefore no "humanity" was ever bestowed on the fertilized egg, and so flushing a placenta down the toilet is no desecration to "human-ness"?
So, you draw a line between a fetus and a placenta. It must be somewhat humaniform in order to meet your definition of human. If so, what about an anencephalic fetus? They look like nothing so much as a sort of pinkish rubbery grub. What about that?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can I just point something out.
Finn says "give me one time where the Human child doesn't develop and you've won" or words to that effect.
He's given that and splutters "Well, that's not important, because because, it's not that's why, erm the reason behind, the erm, fertilisation is erm babies yeah!"
Go on Finn, say it, "Every Sperm is sacred you fucking baby killers"
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME