kill crips and tards?

[genocide roach]

food > arguing about "special" people

fo sho
~gR~

 

[Έρεβος]

I am undecided on abortion but when it comes to people who are disabled I say we treat them like a normal fucking human being.

Uh.. why would we treat them like something they aren't..? That makes a whole mess of sense.

 

[AchrisK]

He probably means value them as a human, like any other. Or maybe not.

 

[DigToChina]

Cambodian solution to midgets

 

[The Ozzman]

Take this thread and SHOVE IT!!

 

[Έρεβος]

He probably means value them as a human, like any other. Or maybe not.

Humans are of a great variety of value. Some of great value, some of none at all.

 

[genocide roach]

Some of great value, some of none at all.

like dave! no value what so ever
~gR~

 

[The Ozzman]

I find it hilarious how Susperia was here and then disappeared after I proved that a fetus is nothing but a parasite.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

I CAN'T believe this hasn't been posted yet!

 

[AchrisK]

So, basically, the point that the 'pro-choice' people have been getting at with the viability statistics of zygotes is that there's no precedent in nature for considering zygotes on par with full-fledged humans. Hopefully that wraps up the question of whether the likelihood of a zygote's survival has any bearing on its status as a full human.

What I'd really like to see you address though, AchrisK, is why you think it's so important for us to respect these zygotes as if they're full humans.

First off, it's not like the world is a sanctuary for human life anyway - people are dying all the time through violence, starvation and disease. There's really no need to get upset over there not being another human being on the planet - there are enough of us as it is, and if there's ever room for more of us, you can bet your ass that we'll occupy it.

That said, I expect that your best defense for this is going to be the "right to life" argument, if you wish to take it. Obviously this concept is meaningless in the context of nature, what with all the massive losses of life that occur all the time.

Now, as to whether this 'right' has meaning in a human context: my belief is that it's just a convenient way of coping with our natural discomfort over death. We don't want to live in a world full of death, so as a result we seek to 'enforce' life. This is quite understandable when you consider how painful it is to be a friend or relative of someone who dies; but it's pretty hard to 'feel' for the death of a zygote. In that sense, there doesn't seem to be any real gain in investing zygotes with the same 'right' we give to full-grown people who are actually in the world and have an effect on others.

Hey, just let me make my own “defense”, instead of making it for me and trying to refute it before I even read your post. Silly boy

I know more than I used to (yesterday) and I realize that just by natural process many zygotes don't survive. I know they represent biological life, and if all goes right for them they represent a 1 in 1 chance of being a human of some sort. Sperm and unfertilized eggs represent only theoretical potential, and left alone will never amount to anything but rotting carcasses. A fertilized egg will either become a human or it will fail at becoming a human, but it will be starting the process.

Maybe I am wrong in arguing for the zygote. I don't know. But you must (and likely do) realize that my views about this whole argument center around humans being created by God and possessing an eternal soul (soul? Spirit?). So at what point does this fertilized egg receive a soul? Obviously we can’t answer that, and even the existence of the soul itself is in question to the natural evolutionist/Atheist. So when is it ok to snuff the life of a fertilized egg? I don’t know, so that’s probably why I take a conservative stance.

I think my argument is based around “playing God” to the extent that one human unjustifiably deciding to take the life of another human. I am not saying it is never justified, but typically I feel it is not. The “playing God” part comes in because as we have seen a number of zygotes don’t make it, and even a number of fetuses don’t make it, and furthermore people die all day long. I believe that God must allow the death of each person, and that is his responsibility. I agree with you, life is fleeting and fragile and people die constantly. It’s a part of life. I think I am pretty comfortable with that, though I haven’t been tested to the extreme on this (yet).

Regarding my feelings for zygotes; heck, I barely feel for the millions of dying humans who are already born.

And let’s not get into a religious debate. I am just letting you know more in depth where my own views come from and what the reasons are, as you requested. I am not interested in proving God at this point.

 

[Susperia]

Sounds like what a fetus is, doesn't it?

A FETUS IS A PRODUCT OF REPRODUCTION BETWEEN ONE SPECIES AND IS PART OF THAT SAME FUCKING SPECIES THEREFORE IT CAN'T BE CLASSIFIED AS A PARASITE YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!

 

[Susperia]

I find it hilarious how Susperia was here and then disappeared after I proved that a fetus is nothing but a parasite.

Disappeared??? You mean went to bed then went to work all day and now I'm home again? How is that disappearing? Because I am a normal person with responsibilities, a job, and somewhat of a life?

You
are
incompetent beyond all means.

And you didn't prove shit... All you did was copy and paste the generic definition of a parasite without taking into consideration that LIFE ISN'T BLACK AND WHITE!

 

[Susperia]

For humans sex is NOT - despite what the religious right may have one believe - simply for procreation. If it were then we'd have a breeding season.

Yup, or women would be fertile at all times. Why is it women are only fertile a few days out of every cycle? (Which range from 28-32 days long on average)... Because sex isn't just about procreation for us. It has many different meanings and levels just like humans do. It makes sense, considering we are more complex than most other animals, our sex lives are much more complex as well...

If "god" meant for us to only have sex to procreate, he would have made us women either fertile at all times, or we'd only want to have sex when the woman is fertile. You should read Sex in the Bible btw... I forget the name of the author but if you search for that on amazon you'll probably find it. It's very... awakening. Moreso for a Christian I presume. God was actually very particular about human sexuality. If you believe in such a thing.

 

[Susperia]

They are intelligent enough to consider them sentient beings, capable of suffering and the more advanced ones being capable of experiencing the same basic emotions that humans do. Placing a cluster of cells that happen to have human DNA above a fully grown sentient animal with the above mentioned attributes is a hypocritical and irrational thing to do. The opposite of common sense, really.

Here's some things to consider.

- Most people would agree that ending the life of an entity that is capable of suffering is worse than ending the life of an entity that isn't
- Sentience is a prerequisite for the ability to suffer
- Certain sensory organs and at the very least some basic cognitive ability are prerequisites for being considered sentient (we don't consider a plant to be sentient, afterall)
- The more advanced the cognitive abilities, the more pronounced the suffering is likely to be

Following that, common sense would be that ending the life of a human zygote which has none of the attributes required for sentience is less severe than killing, well, any given fully grown mammal which are very much sentient and capable of suffering.

But the prevailing religious angle (people like Zephyrus being the exception) to this argument doesn't follow the consideration of individual suffering and rather goes by the unquestionable worth of mankind (regardless of what stage it is in) and favours speciesism instead. Again, the opposite of common sense.

I applaud you, good sir, and I thank you for taking the time to write that out for us.

 

[cookiecutter]

*Souls and when they appear*

So I gather from this post that you believe that zygotes have souls and therefore are human. If that is the case, then why are there so many miscarriages? God is omniscient, so he knows who will have miscarriages, yet he implants souls anyway, dooming them. That sounds pretty awful.

Two points about Susperia:

1. Obviously a fetus is not a parasite. Not sure what Ozzman was thinking

2. There is a multiquote button. It works great for not clogging threads with 4 consecutive posts

 

[Susperia]

So sorry poopie.

 

[cookiecutter]

I forgive you

 

[The Ozzman]

Disappeared??? You mean went to bed then went to work all day and now I'm home again? How is that disappearing? Because I am a normal person with responsibilities, a job, and somewhat of a life?

You
are
incompetent beyond all means.

And you didn't prove shit... All you did was copy and paste the generic definition of a parasite without taking into consideration that LIFE ISN'T BLACK AND WHITE!

Funny, I have all the bolded things too. Imagine that.

The rest doesn't warrant a response. Artists should be seen and not heard.

1. Obviously a fetus is not a parasite. Not sure what Ozzman was thinking

Well, a fetus sure as hell has the same qualities as a parasite:

1) It feeds off of something else to live (the mother). Otherwise, it dies
2) The fetus doesn't help the mother survive.
3) If it dies, the mother doesn't die (usually, sometimes the mother dies due to other trauma or conditions)

I don't know what you'd call it if it isn't a human.

 

[Pessimism]

A FETUS IS A PRODUCT OF REPRODUCTION BETWEEN ONE SPECIES AND IS PART OF THAT SAME FUCKING SPECIES THEREFORE IT CAN'T BE CLASSIFIED AS A PARASITE YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!

Actually...just because a fetus is in early gestation and the product of two grown members of the same (or different) species doesn't mean that it can automatically be classified as a non-parasite.

I think the main problem is you can't handle the (supposedly) inherent bias in the word "parasite". If that is the case, then let me reiterate the previously made statement: The fetus is indeed a human, but at the early stages of it's development it has a parasitical nature; whether this is healthy for both mother and child depends on the health, environment, and the genome.

 

[The Ozzman]

Well, I suppose you could make a case that it isn't a parasite because the DNA is related, but whatever.

It's still has parasitic qualities, but I wouldn't call it human.