Abortion: Science or Legalisms

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
It was relevant but I wasn't talking to you. You're arguing semantics trying to disprove an argument I didn't make.

No you just like to throw in little facts and exaggerate little variables to throw people off and make yourself look smart. In the process, you make yourself look the opposite. This is a discussion on life and abortion of human life. It is not about destroying robots which are not life.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
No you just like to throw in little facts and exaggerate little variables to throw people off and make yourself look smart. In the process, you make yourself look the opposite. This is a discussion on life and abortion of human life. It is not about destroying robots which are not life.

He was arguing from the position that I only cared about human life and I was correcting him. I thew the bit about AI in to preempt any argument on the personhood side of things by making my position clear and you decided to show off your knowledge of biology by telling me it wasn't 'life' even though that was semantics and not the argument I was making.

make yourself look smart. In the process, you make yourself look the opposite.

I do believe there is a proverb about logs in eyes that applies to you.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
I do believe there is a proverb about logs in eyes that applies to you.

I am not the one who likes to give random 1 liners that are obviously meant to evoke strong reaction (and you have even admitted to "trolling") without explaining myself.

And I am not showing off anything. Not my fault that you two can't take the time to actually learn what life is defined as, yet insist on building arguments based on your incorrect assumptions.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
I am not the one who likes to give random 1 liners that are obviously meant to evoke strong reaction (and you have even admitted to "trolling") without explaining myself.

And I am not showing off anything. Not my fault that you two can't take the time to actually learn what life is defined as, yet insist on building arguments based on your incorrect assumptions.

No, you're arguing semantics trying to disprove an argument I didn't make to someone over a comment that was made to someone else to clarify a position I had. When you sop being an idiot and can stay on topic, I'll respond. Until then the rest of us will e having a civil conversation on the topic raised in the OP.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
No, you're arguing semantics trying to disprove an argument I didn't make to someone over a comment that was made to someone else to clarify a position I had. When you sop being an idiot and can stay on topic, I'll respond. Until then the rest of us will e having a civil conversation on the topic raised in the OP.

I am not disproving the android thing as there is nothing to disprove, but saying it is not relevant. And an argument that revolves around the definition of life and human life will naturally involve semantics- you are DEFINING things (it literally is a discussion on semantics). And in your case, defining them WRONG.
 
Feb 2012
12
0
Abortion SOLVES some issues: unwanted kids, kids who'd be too ill to enjoy a decent life etc. You cannot come now in the 21st century and PREVENT a future mother to do what she things is best for her. While I do respect everyone's religious beliefs, I do think Religion is 'outdated' in many cases. And that's coming from an Orthodox, who's a little tired of having the priests tell me what to do with my life.

I haven't had any abortions. I'm 33, have been VERY careful with this. Still, if I knew I cannot raise that kid, I wouldn't give birth to it.

I'm NOT OK with clueless teens who use abortion as a contraceptive, get on the pill for God's sake. But, if you'd throw that kid in the garbage, maybe you're not yet fit to be a mother just yet.
 
Jun 2012
134
0
Turkey
On the other hand, Woman has the right to control her own body. Abortion should be legal. And people can move according to their thoughts.



Abortion SOLVES some issues: unwanted kids, kids who'd be too ill to enjoy a decent life etc. You cannot come now in the 21st century and PREVENT a future mother to do what she things is best for her. While I do respect everyone's religious beliefs, I do think Religion is 'outdated' in many cases. And that's coming from an Orthodox, who's a little tired of having the priests tell me what to do with my life.

I haven't had any abortions. I'm 33, have been VERY careful with this. Still, if I knew I cannot raise that kid, I wouldn't give birth to it.

I'm NOT OK with clueless teens who use abortion as a contraceptive, get on the pill for God's sake. But, if you'd throw that kid in the garbage, maybe you're not yet fit to be a mother just yet.

Also, I don't think any government s able to ban it. Once upon a time they had tried in Romania, during to Nikolay, Ç period and failed.
 
May 2009
225
0
USA
The decision to have children, either in or out of wedlock, is a very personal one; but nevertheless one that directly affects society as a whole, and thus it is a decision laden with responsibilities that far outweigh our selfish desires either way. Not all persons should have children. Many have children for all the wrong reasons, and as many make for poor parents that treat their children as no more than personal possessions. Indeed, most people give more thought to buying a puppy than they do to bringing a child into the world. As Darwin observed: "Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when it comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. . . ." Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Ch. XXI, "General Summary and Conclusion" (1871). The principal distinction between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is the ability to reason; and yet how little consideration is given to such an important matter as rearing a child. One would think that we had but small brains for the lack of foresight as to the consequences of our decisions.
 
Top