- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,194
- Reaction score
- 744
What does that have to do with what I said?
I bet conjoined twins living today we're born full term because their mothers birthed them fully.
Question For The Pro-Choice crowd
- Thread starter EL CORINTHIAN
- Start date
I bet conjoined twins living today we're born full term because their mothers birthed them fully.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,597
- Reaction score
- 2
Sure. Thats like a baby just out the womb.
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 9,355
- Reaction score
- 5,289
According to your logic one cannot be a being until they are able to physically live detached from their mother. So what about conjoined twins that cannot be seperated. Are they not beings?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,597
- Reaction score
- 2
What would happen if I told them that? They might snowflake on me? Lol
Look, in that case the robbers should be charged with assault but not murder.
It is not healthy to play make believe, such as those who proclaim a mass of tissue inside a woman is a himan being. If the vital organs are not fully developed...it is not a human.
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 9,355
- Reaction score
- 5,289
And also inside of it as well. The seeds are in my balls, whats inside a womans stomach is not...........but it has been on occasion. Like last week.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,194
- Reaction score
- 744
Are conjoined twins able to live once away from their mother's?
Quit trying to distract from the actual discussion.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 25,280
- Reaction score
- 4,093
There is a pretty clear process to decide whether intervention is necessary: Is she of sound mind? Given her action, there is a case she is not.
But this is also a peculiar outlier and a fantastic illusion of choice, given she appears to be a drug addict (and again, not likely of sound mind).
But this is also a peculiar outlier and a fantastic illusion of choice, given she appears to be a drug addict (and again, not likely of sound mind).
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 17,662
- Reaction score
- 6,429
I'm 51% pro-life, 49% pro choice.
I usually get confused with all the inconsistencies in law and arguments I hear about abortion.
What should be done? The mother should be put in a health facility / jail, be allowed to deliver the baby, and have it taken into protective custody. Then she should get treatment for her mental issues.
I usually get confused with all the inconsistencies in law and arguments I hear about abortion.
What should be done? The mother should be put in a health facility / jail, be allowed to deliver the baby, and have it taken into protective custody. Then she should get treatment for her mental issues.
But abortion rates have been declining since legalization. lol So why even fight it? Oh, because muh religion. It's funny to see people argue the morality of it and still support the animal agriculture industry. It's as if they don't realize an adult pig is worth a lot more than an embryo if they want to argue from a sentience standpoint. The christian conservatives want you to have your child but want nothing to do with supporting it after birth. Logic.
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 9,355
- Reaction score
- 5,289
lol
Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that if you have a physical dependance on your mother for life due to being attached to her you are not a singular being but for some reason this transcends a scenario where conjoined twins are dependent on one another for essentially the same reason.
All you are really saying is that you need to be birthed. The rest of your argument about physical dependence is nonsense.
Lets take an extremely rare hypothetical to knock down the argument. What he said is that since the baby relies on the mother to survive, it should be up to the mother, the patient, to make the medical decision to terminate it. That is what justifies early term abortion for him, he didn't mean to say the fetus is nonexistent because it requires the mother to survive. You attacked one line, one word, you didn't follow up on the rest because then you wouldn't have anything to argue.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,194
- Reaction score
- 744
Lol, dude, your argument is hilarious
...If you are able to be conceived via natural child birth, I believe you deserve every right under the law (aka not being aborted).
Conjoined twins aren't some loophole here. They can only come into this world by being birthed from their mothers.
Conjoined twins can't be born without a healthy mother (and if she wants to abort them before they're able to live on their own, she can). Quit being retarded
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 9,355
- Reaction score
- 5,289
Im trying to understand his definition of a human which is his actual justification for early term abortion, not early term abortion itself which is why you are confused by my "argument". What he is actually saying (which im not sure he gets yet) is that the fetus is not a human because it is dependent on the mother and also because it has not been birthed yet. Im saying that the whole "dependency" part of his logic is none-sense and that he really only beleives that for someone to be considered human they simply need to be birthed, and i disagree with that.
What justifies early term abortion for him is that (to him) unless the baby is physically capable of survival after being physically separated (birth) from his/her mother it is not a human. In other words physical independence and being birthed are his criteria for what makes someone human.
My "argument" is me unpacking that part of his logic and trying to extend it to conjoined twins. They do not have a physical dependence to their mother but they do have it to each other so whats the difference? Is physical independence only a prerequisite when it comes to mothers or can it be extended to siblings? If not why? This is why i pointed out that it has nothing to do with physical dependence but rather being birthed in which he believes person hood is bestowed
It is hilarious because it's been spent translating your line of reasoning.Lol, dude, your argument is hilarious
I rest my case.
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 9,355
- Reaction score
- 5,289
No he said it's not human. You are probably the only one interpreting it that way.
Ughh yea because that's the only point i want to adress. Is that alright with you?
I see, you are both interpreting the word "being" as if it means human, unless you meant to quote the line above that word.
Example:
This line
Which I do agree with, minus the wording. Versus...
Which I don't agree with, especially when going off of the basis of what is considered human.
And to be clear, you don't have a problem with the stance I presented though, right? I assumed you were against the stance and tried to weasel out of it by playing semantics, I apologize if I was wrong.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,194
- Reaction score
- 744
Yes. That's all it is.
Do you understand now?
It's really not that hard, that's what I've been saying this whole time. You can argue semantics and weird situations all you want, but that's what I've been trying to tell you the whole time.
You can disagree with me, that's fine, it's clear you do. But to keep bringing up strange situations and semantics about it is not going to change anyone's viewpoint or make yours look any better.
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 9,355
- Reaction score
- 5,289
No I don't agree exactly with that line of reasoning. I can understand your interpretation a little bit better but even if the baby relies solely on the mother I don't think that's justification enough. My view's on abortion are shaped more around the potential quality of life for the baby so if it's going to be brought into a world of pain and misery than I'm not against abortion.
But remember your interpretation of his justification is different. Where we differ is that I feel abortion is OK because the fetus is human and should be alloted the decency of escaping a terrible life and that should be the standard. He believes it's ok because it's not a human, that's my problem.
I know this may sound crazy but this is a place where people discuss politics and if you are going to assert something it's open to criticism. A counter argument isn't "semantics" just because you don't know how to answer back.
What on earth are you even going on about? I brought up ONE example to prove to you the gaping whole in your human logic which you chose to label as semantics and dance around for a few posts.
I'll clear up your position. You beleive fetuses aren't humans and that justifies abortion. Period. And thats whybim not on board.
The criteria as you layed it out is independence from the mother and being birthed. I say the independence part is horse shit as I illustrated with the conjoined twins since but for some reason you allot some mystical power to the mother but no one else to be Dependant on. Your real criteria for being a human is to simply be birthed and again I say bullshit.
If you can simply understand that you are willfully gifting women with some otherworldly power that confers personhood simply on the bases of being independent of her the quicker we can end our conversation.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2007
- Messages
- 27,336
- Reaction score
- 3,395
What the actual F?
Our country has surely fallen when a woman gets applause for announcing her 1st abortion, just the 1st one was in x city.
R
ripskater
Guest
For sure.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,194
- Reaction score
- 744
Last edited:
