Dermot's Waterfall
This is exactly why I am an ignorant robotic mechanism of stupidity rather than a fully developed human being. Jacque Fresco is demonstrably less intelligent than a pot plant . I would like to see a list of inventions and ideas he ever had about how to change society . For him to be less retarded, no one can show me something good so none of his words might have any merit. But as far as I can see he was a mindless robot promoting the same bullshit system I was programmed to believe in from a young age.
Glad you got that off your chest mate. I totally agree 👌☺️
The whole world has gone fucking crazy as everyone bends over backwards to appear P C correct , what you expierienced is shows how ridiculous it’s gone and you had every right to give as good as you got
What a cowardly shower of bastards snitching on you
Begging the question requires some kind of fallacious reasoning using a conclusion as a premise.
Yes
That's not the same thing as stating a fact
Yes
. To state that a fetus has a human genome and is living is merely describing or characterizing the state of being a fetus exists in. It makes no claims about the metaphysical status of the fetus itself. Contrary to what you say, it's very scientific and very objective.
My statement regarding a fetus is that it’s a potential human
Now, the debate depends on whether you think being of the species homo sapiens is enough to receive the right to life, or whether the entity has to be a human person (defined in the metaphysical sense). To that point, you say it doesn't matter how I define a fetus.
As in your definition and mine may differ but even if I accept your definition most keep missing my point and thus the whole thrust of my argument
If we're sincerely interested in truth and morality it would matter whether we are destroying something that has a right to life because that would be called murder.
It’s matters to me that a fetus seems to be given a right as in a right to life which takes precedence over a woman’s right to bodily autonomy , why should that be ?
Murder by most moral constructs is inherently evil, and grossly more objectionable to violating bodily autonomy.
Why do you use the term “ murder “ when applied to a fetus ?
To be fair, I think your bodily autonomy argument deserves equal open-minded analysis as well.
Good that signifies you’re open to a dialogue that may be fruitful
If we can conclude that a pregnancy is violating a woman's rights then abortion as a solution deserves more consideration (assuming of course that we're not committing murder by doing it)
No , I don’t agree that a pregnancy is violating a woman’s rights nor did I state that , again why the term “ murder “?
. If you just de facto say "I really don't care how you define a fetus a woman's rights trump those of a fetus," well that's neither compelling nor good-willed.
“Compelling “ to you no , to me yes , I don’t understand what you mean by “good willed “ as in to who ?
The fact of the matter is that this issue effects everyone, and everyone involved in the debate matters.
Yes , I agree
If you just pick sides without actually hoping for some truthful answer,
But why would hope for that ? Why is what you define as “ truth “ on the matter the be all and end all ?
or are close-minded you're partaking in an incessant war that benefits no one.
You see again you seem to be claiming anyone that disagree with your position is “ close minded “ hardly fair is it ?
The same is true for pro-lifers who mindlessly defend an issue they don't understand. I'll get off my soap box.
Well at least that is a more balanced observation
Regarding your bodily autonomy argument, this is the same argument found in Beverly Wildung Harrison's "Our Right to Choose," Rosalind Pollack Petchesky's "Abortion and a Woman's Choice," and many works from Judith Jarvis Thompson. They all mistaken a liberty right for a claim right. The former can be laid out as follows: B (e.g. a woman) has a liberty relative to A (e.g. a fetus) to x (e.g. terminate a pregnancy), iff A (fetus) has no claim right that B (woman) should not x (terminate a pregnancy). A claim right would be laid out as follows: A (all innocent human beings) have a right that B (another person) should x (forebear intentional killing) iff B (another person) has a duty to A (human being) to x (forebear killing). Of course, the claim right is true because few would make the claim that an innocent human being shouldn't be protected from random killing. Hence, they have a right to not be killed. A claim right, a right in the strict sense, discusses the actions of other persons (i.e. another person) not of the right holder (i.e. the innocent human being) Meanwhile the liberty right we laid out earlier depends on the action of the right holder, the other person/entity, and the action. The woman only has a right to terminate a pregnancy iff the fetus does not have a claim right that the woman should not terminate the pregnancy. Because terminating a pregnancy obviously means ending the life of a fetus (in the biological sense), you have to prove that the fetus does not have a claim right to life. Saying "we don't know" risks committing an intrinsically evil act which is impermissible. Hence, you have to either prove that (1) not all innocent humans (note, that I don't use the term "human person" indicating that human is used in a biological/scientific sense) have a right to life; (2) the fetus isn't innocent; or (3) only human persons have a right to life and a fetus isn't a human person. Of course, you've already discussed how we can't know whether a fetus is a human person or not. I'm honestly interested though, is it (1) or (2) that you believe? Or something else?
Ok I’ve read that and I find it not really worth commenting on as it’s just another’s opinion on the matter which fails to address my basic argument which everyone totally ignores in favour of addressing what I’ve repeated ad nauseum........
A fetus is reliant on a mother for sustenance , a fetus has zero rights to sustenance from a woman , a fetus is granted this sustenance by permission of the woman , this permission can be withdrawn at any time
Why do people assume that they can tell a woman she cannot abort and thus deny a woman a right over her own body in favour of an assumed right a fetus should have ?
If a fetus had a right to life why should it’s right supercede that of the woman ?
I did say potential human life and you knew exactly what I meant as your failure to address what I actually said is again typical of you , maybe you should try debating gun rights again as in your swimming pool v gun deaths argument as that argument demonstrates your irrationality beautifully also
I’m always impressed when you make good arguments because I never expect much from you. One cannot expect much from a person who doubts that they experience doubt but is certain that they cannot be certain. I’ll throw this argument in with your growing list of childish, irrational positions.
A typical childish outburst from you who gets into a temper tantrum at the thoughts of women having the right to choice , I dismissed the rest of your gibberish as typical of your usual rants
By this logic, the government has no right to require parents to attend to the needs of their children as this compels parents to do certain things with their body.
What you're basically saying is you couldn't give a damn what I say on the topic , you continuously try to tell me what I'm saying by actually ignoring what I'm saying and re _ stating my case to fit your narritive
I told you and others several times a fetus is where it is by permission which is given by the mother , this permission can be withdrawn at any time , a woman is perfectly entitled to bodily Autonomy/ integrety which is a right you and others feel perfectly acceptable to deny her , why have you a " right " to tell a woman whether she can abort or not ?
Why should any supposed " rights " of a fetus trump those of a woman ?
Your logic would serve to eliminate laws against neglect.
No , that's actually your attempt to re-frame my position and far from logical , your position is you think the denial of a right for a woman is perfectly fair and reasonable
It would be very direct, that’s why you didn’t say it.
So you accuse me of saying something " direct " which you then admit I didn't say because it is a " direct " statement which I wouldn't make , remarkable you cannot just admit your error
A fetus is living.
What do you mean by " living "when does life begin ?
A fetus has human DNA It’s human DNA is distinct from the DNA of its mother. Your skin cell is alive, but it is part of you. It has your DNA. It is not distinct from you.
There are circumstances wherein the taking of a human life is acceptable.
Abortion being one
I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill.
I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to simply clearly state that a fetus is a potential human life that it's perfectly acceptable to eliminate
I’m not sure why it is so hard for you to simply, clearly state that a fetus is a human life that is acceptable to kill
Let's just for argument's sake say I agreed with this position as you put it I would still say yes abortion is perfectly acceptable even you want to call a fetus a baby as many do , abort away or don't
No , I don’t , I’ve made my position perfectly clear your contention was ,
You claimed I said , .......that it actually isn’t alive until it’s born.....
I asked ....
I’m still asking please point out where I said these exact words because would that not be a very “ direct response “ if I had said it ?
So maybe you can post the proof where I actually said this ?
This implies that a human life is not alive until born
Everything is “ alive “ sperm is alive a flake of dandruff is alive , do you call a fetus a human ?
insofar as you won’t answer my question,
I did answer it as in a fetus is a potential human life and if aborted well it’s no longer “ potential “ is it ?
To say that a thing is alive, and a thing has human DNA, and that these together make it a human life, is not begging the question.
Incorrect , they do not make it a human life as it’s still a potential human life
If you want to say that it is a potential
But then you must articulate what is potential about it.
Is it the DNA or the life?
When I speak of “ potential “ I’m still talking about unborn / born if born you’re a potential life brought to fruition
If it is neither, then we are still talking about a human life. This matters because you must then articulate The conditions in which the taking of a human life is acceptable
The fetus has zero rights to sustenance from the mother and if you think otherwise , why would you assume this ?
. If your argument is that a woman has the right to take actions which result in the taking of a human life, then you have to articulate why.
My argument from day one on the issue is simple and plainly put but everyone attempts to re - state it or find a “ gotcha “ so here it is one more time ......
I believe the choice is purely a woman’s and no one else’s I couldn’t give a fuck if she aborts or not , it’s not my business to tell a woman what she can or cannot do regarding the issue , her body , her choice
Saying that she simply does is begging the question
I never said that
But the point is that the answer to the question you’re avoiding matters.
I haven’t avoided it , the answer I gave from the off suffices
Ok , read that last part again as you're still begging the question.....
There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights.
Either way I have been through this argument 100's of times on here and do not wish to keep reapeatng myself , I do not really care what way you want to define a fetus ,a woman's rights trump those of a fetus and to deny this is to deny a right as in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body
The Christian answer no doubt is " you're taking the word good out of context one has to understand the Herbrew meaning of the word etc, etc 😴😴😴
The other explanation is possibly that Christians get to guzzle Easter eggs , beer , watch plenty of tv , and laze about all the time trying to convince each other they're " holier "than anyone else
