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
potential life of the unborn?
Yes
That's like telling someone, "You have a potentially long life to live..." just before you blow their brains out ;)
Well no it’s not , that’s why one is deemed murder and the other is not , now which one is deemed murder do you think ?
You could be defending women's rights at the expense of a fetus' life.
Not could be , I am protecting the woman’s rights taking precedence over the potential life of the unborn
Your approach is sensible but its a debate forum and I love to battle
And you’re entitled to it , I’m passionate about women’s rights as in women deciding regarding a choice over what they wish to do with their bodies , it’s because of my background brought up in a Catholic dominated society where women were treated like dogs
Name calling: "abusive language or insults".
Facts regarding your idiocy are well .... facts
I'm simply using your logic, in that you say that because I believed that a fetus was a baby, I must've thought that a baby was a fetus and so on.
Again your re-invention of what was said is part of your genetic idiocy as in an inherited trait
It was a reference to your profile picture.
Oh yes I forgot you’re a young earth creationist
And you don't know how to spell evolution.
Well I do it’s just you’re boring and I thought I might amuse myself by letting you “ pounce “ on a typo ..... bless your little heart
That was you, idiot.
That’s a bit rich coming from a retard like you
No, I'm against people calling evolution a definite fact, at least right now.
Yes I know facts upset you the real truths are in answers in genesis aren’t they
why don't you actually support your claims,
Like I keep doing you mean ?
instead of telling me to research your claim?
I asked you to get a basic education but hey you’re a “ conservative “
Another typical bit of stupidity from you
Yes I know acceptance of fact as in Evolution is stupidity according to young earthers like youn
Funny how everything you can't argue against is "stupidity" or "gibberish".
You really mean funny how easily I de -bunk your bullshit
No, we don't.
So I was right
We have front lawns and backyards
Oh , now you do like all your arguments as in you say one thing and then contradict your own nonsense
, maybe you should escape from your liberal safe space and explore more then your "garden lawn".
Maybe you should leave your trailer and get a job you lazy sod
From the off?
Apologies I forgot you’re a “ conservative “ and terms in common usage are alien to you
My defense is the fetus is alive.
That’s it ?
Now, for your rebuttal?
The fetus is reliant on “ life “ from the mother and either way so what ?
So what
So, you say the fetus isn't alive. How is it not alive if it needs nutrients?
It’s reliant on the mother for life and it gets nutrients from the mother it’s not entitled to
And, if you do think it's alive, what makes abortion different from infanticide? Other then, of course, infanticide occurring after the birth.
Infanticide is the crime of a mother killing her child within a year of birth you idiot , what do you mean “after birth “ you fool ?
I admit it's immoral to kill a human/potential human. Not whatever you just said.
So now the game is “ whatever you just said “ what a cop out by the work shy “ conservative “ , what I said as well you know if you admit it’s immoral to prevent a like been born but yet you support contraception because you’re a hypocrite
but it's fine to prevent a potential
How is the fetus created if the contraception works?
How is the baby born if the abortion works same principle both are as you admitted preventing a potential life being born .... checkmate again
Here's the line of progression, in case you needed a diagram:
Use of contraception: Saucy stuff > Contraception > Mother doesn't become pregnant > fetus isn't created.
Use of abortion: Saucy stuff > mother becomes pregnant > fetus is created > fetus is aborted; life ended.
Here’s the line of reasoning exposing your hypocrisy again theworkshy said ....it’s immoral to prevent a potential human life to be born but it’s moral to prevent a human life being born by contraception
says Dermot. That's irony.
Yes if you accept your “ alternative narrative “
Abortion = termination of pregnancy
Contraception = prevention of pregnancy
Abortion = Prevention of a potential life being born
Contraception = Prevention of a potential life being born
Can you see your hypocrisy now
I haven't denied anything, except for having denied anything.
You have but its ok you’re a “ conservative “
No, that's just not true. You need arguments based on facts. I don't care about how you feel, I care about the stats to use to prove your arguments.
All my arguments are factual your are appeals to emotion
The individual's woman's?
Surprisingly over here women are individuals
To whom does the woman belong?
What that gibberish means is beyond me
I'm saying the man and woman should have an equal choice on the matter.
Nonsense, the woman’s choice takes precedence you caveman
I'm fine with both of them making a choice, as long as their choices have equal consideration.
No , woman’s choice takes precedence and your opinion is worthless because the law supports the woman’s choice
Both parties should get an equal choice on the matter.
They shouldn’t that’s why they don’t
I didn't say it was.
You did you liar then you changed to manslaughter
no one is charged with murder for aborting
What's your point? A lot of guys aren't charged with rape, that doesn't mean they didn't rape the girl.
But you just admitted it’s not murder you idiot so what do you want them charged with ?
Newsflash .... it’s legal to abort get over it
your government murders people " legally "
The death penalty is legal in several states.
Yes that’s why I mentioned it you fool
no, you aren't.
Oh yes I am
Humanists "emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively" by definition,
I know thanks for the lecture
and when fetuses have the cells needed to define them as humans, you still think it's okay to kill them.
Yes of course like you I believe in the right to prevent a potential life being born you agree as in contraception
Again , saying something is "gibberish" isn't a defense.
I don’t need a “ defence “ I’m merely pointing out your continual posting of gibberish
Then why did you criticize me for using the term "bodily rights"?
I corrected you on useage of terminology you were unaware of
No, it isn't.
Oh yes it is
I'm a conservative, so you're wrong again.
You forgot to mention a workshy conservative
Funny how you bring up Roe v. Wade.
Yes it Hilarious
You know, all nine justices on that court were men
So what ?
. And yet, you say you don't think men should be able to decide the fate of women.
I never said that you liar
Also , did you know that in that case, something called substantive due process was used?
Oh stop it you crybaby
where some rights can't be taken away, even through due process, and that was the reason for the ruling in Roe v. Wade.
This is what happens when Luigi tries to take down an American with our own laws and court cases.
Abortion is legal you crybaby
What gives you bodily integrity?
It’s a basic human right you dunce
I asked you a question, and you didn't answer.
I did several times you dunce
Oh, did I get a promotion?
No , your workshy .... remember ?
Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it's legal.
If something isn’t “ illegal “ that mean it’s legal you idiot , talk about alternative facts
It wasn't illegal for Hitler to conquer Europe,
It was you fucking cabbage under international law
but that didn't make it legal
If something isn’t illegal then it must be legal you clown
What sort of nonsense is this ?
If something is legal it’s not illegal you prize idiot
Says the one calling names on a debate website.
That's not name calling that's merely an apt description of you as in you're an idiot
So, people who disagree with you are fish and fish are people who disagree with you?
I never that , I said you have the intellect of a fish which you've demonstrated yet again with this latest piece of gibberish
Says the man/fish/Darwinist that believes women can kill their children as long as they haven't been born yet.
Man Fish ??? Oh yes I forgot you don't understand Evoultion either and now a fetus is a child , you are getting desperate aren't you ?
Where do you get that anti-abortion advocates do this?
you are anti abortion , are you ?
What are you babbling on about ?
Yes, I'm anti-abortion. I'm also anti-Dermot, but that's irrelevant.
You're anti Evolution also so you're consistent in your stupidity
Since you say a baby is different from a fetus biologically, what cells change?
Why not consult a medical textbook ?
Well not my own.
Yes I know
I use your logic.
As in me denying Evolution is fact. , interesting
You're right, I shouldn't be given credit for your faulty logic.
Another typical bit of stupidity from you
What's a garden lawn?
Oh I forgot you don't have them in trailer parks
Also, this doesn't seem to be helping your argument.
The argument is over from the off you've yet to offer a defence
Potential human. It's living. Otherwise, why would it need to rely on the mother for nutrients?
So what ?
No, I admit it's immoral to kill a potential human that also happens to be your child,
Yes you admit it's immoral to prevent a potential human being born ,but it's fine to prevent a potential human being born by using contraception , you're a two faced hypocrite
but I'm pro-contraception.
Yes you're pro abortion
Where have I lied?
Denial now as well , you agreed when I originally corrected you by stating " A potential human " then denied you agreed now to agree agsin making you a liar
How's that? Your only consistent argument is "Her body , her choice".
That's the only argument needed ,
What gives you that choice?
It's not my choice it's the individual's woman's choice , I don't care either way abort or don't , your body your choice
There's no law or amendment giving women "bodily rights", so where do they get them from?
Your ignorance is appalling why not do a bit of research into Roe V Wade in your own country and see what the findings were , you truly are an idiot
Bodily integrity you idiot
Why aren't their choices equal?
It's not his body
Yes, the baby is in the mother, but the baby wouldn't be there without the father.
Amazing , thank you for that
Where do you get this from? You continue to say "Her body, her choice" but the baby isn't solely hers.
So you're saying the man should have a choice but why should his. choice be given equal consideration ?
So you’re fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she’s anti abortion?
???
You seem to want the man to have a choice but only if it's anti abortion
No one gets the choice to murder legally.
It's not murder you clown and no one is charged with murder for aborting so your stupidity is exposed again , and another correction your government murders people " legally " in prisons and bombing campaigns
You're a liberal.
I'm a humanist you fool
It's only babbling to you because you can't comprehend the words I'm typing.
Incorrect , I cannot comprehend the gibberish you type
Then why have you called it bodily rights in the past?
Same thing you idiot
You act like the terms are interchangeable,
They are you idiot
like sex and gender.
No , that's merely your obsession and Americans in general with gender don't you guys invent a new gender every day ?
I don't need to do research, you're providing me with all the information I need.
I know as in Roe v Wade you're another dense American who gets schooled in American law by a European
I've looked it up, and I still don't understand where they get "bodily integrity" from.
I know your stupidity isn't helping you is it ?
It's not given as a right by the United States government, and ethicality is not a replacement for the law.
But abortion is legal in the states you prize clown as your courts and legislators agree with me as in there is no accepted consensus on when life begins making me right again
If it were, abortion would be illegal.
Prove it
Pro-choice = Pro-abortion, idiot.
Pro choice , idiot
You argued that the facts of Evution may be incorrect like you do on most facts as in above until corrected by your superiors as in me
Trump would most possibly get the shit beaten out of him in the first round , the towel would get thrown in but this would immediately turn into a “ super “ light footed display of boxing brilliance by the Trumpster
The alternative facts of the fight would be tweeted by sycophantic fans , lackies and good old Trumpster himself and everyone presented with strawberry cheesecake and mini American flags
I would argue a fetus ( and even a fertilized egg ) is a human life
Yes many insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. 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.
It's not a potential human, it is a human.
It’s not , you’ve already admitted as much you idiot in your last post
Here you go ... ..It’s not , it is a “ potential “ human in the making
Fair point.
Your exact words when I said it was a potential human in the making , so why are you lying ?
Already. Women can't give birth to fish.
I’m starting to doubt that as you’re displaying the intellect of a fish
I'm fully aware of your immorality.
You’re a judgemental hypocrite
Where's your evidence?
So you’re now asking me for evidence of what you claim , you are anti abortion are you ?
Also, what makes a fetus' cells different from a newborn's cells?
What this is meant to be getting at I’ve no idea
There was no jump to begin with.
Yes you don’t do logic , my mistake for giving you credit you’re not due
No, you simply don't enjoy it when others use your view and put into any other circumstance.
You mean like your ridiculous garden lawn argument ?
Let me ask, how is it different? Killing an adult and killing a baby?
But a fetus is not a baby it’s a potential life in the making you agreed with this already
How is it that you admit it’s immoral to prevent a potential human to be born yet hypocritically defend abortion which does exactly this ?
I don't assume they're correct because I say they are,
You do until corrected then you resort to lying like your first post on this thread or failing that hypocrisy as in your defence of contraception
It doesn't upset me, but I wish you'd make an argument excluding feelings.
But I’ve destroyed every one of your “ arguments “ so now you’re lying in an attempt to save face
What?
Woman’s body , woman’s choice
And why's that? If not for him, how did the baby get there in the first place?
I said he gets a choice but the woman’s choice takes precedence
No, it's not right.
So you don’t care if the man wishes to abort but you do if it’s the woman ?
See, this is gibberish. What are you saying?
I just told you read above
Then let him make that choice.
So you’re fine with him making a choice but not the woman unless she’s anti abortion?
I can't tell anyone what to do,
But yet people like you if they could would deny them a choice
and neither can you.
That’s why I don’t , I leave it up to the individual woman
Back to being petty, are we?
No , just correcting you again
Well, in that case, what about the 63 other genders some of your liberal friends propose exist ?
My “ liberal friends “ what are you talking about you idiot ?
so she wouldn't be making the choice in the first place.
What are you babbling about ?
Let me ask you this: Who/what gives you "bodily rights"?
It’s actually called bodily integrity why not do some research instead of just shooting your fool mouth off ?
Certainly not the government, there isn't an abortion section of the First Amendment.
Your stupidity is spectacular bodily integrity look it up
, where does she get her bodily rights from?
As above
You stand for abortion, so you clearly aren't being fair to the human you're killing.
I stand for choice so you’re wrong yet again
I can't read the rest of your argument, which is most likely due to you placing your asterisks incorrectly and not proof-reading. I'll be glad to address those when you fix it.
Because to site crashed earlier and I never had the chance to check , anyway it was only me having a laugh at your “ Evolution is not a fact nonsense “ on the other thread