Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 8 hours ago (5:53 PM)
"Forcing others behavior by eliminating choice really is the progressive type of path." If I see a violent bank robber, and am able to corner him with a gun to the side of his head, am I pursuing the "progressive type of path"?
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 8 hours ago (5:44 PM)
I would rather be neither dead, nor a slave. Of course, if I'm dead, I have no further actions to take, but at least if I'm still alive as a slave, I can still fight for my freedom. Whatever you may actually be, you come across as a silly, "divisive" person due to your pernicious "reasoning." Women are not forced to have abortions (maybe in the third world they are), they simply prefer to murder their children than face whatever the alternative consequences might be. You are still missing the point - the women, including the one who was "forced," could have chosen to not have sex in the first place, thereby avoiding pregnancy entirely. If you know that your neighbor intends to murder her husband and drown her children, you aren't going to intervene in any way? You can't force your choice on her, remember? I'll revise my earlier statement - you are not a silly person, you are insane. Seek help.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 9 hours ago (5:24 PM)
That is some truly ridiculous "reasoning." Slavery is the temporary denial of freedom - murder is the PERMANENT denial of EVERYTHING. Women, like everyone else, are slaves only to the consequences of their own choices. Women are not justified in injuring or murdering someone else in their attempt to "escape" the consequences of their chosen behavior. That is the equivalent to a man murdering his pregnant girlfriend because he doesn't want to be stuck paying child support for the next 18 years - are you ok with that?
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 9 hours ago (5:00 PM)
"Personhood" is a non-argument because it does not conform to any scientific standard. DNA is sufficient for establishing that an organism is or is not a member of the human race. Can you give me another example of a living human organism which is NOT considered a human being, or is this a "special circumstance," which exists for the sole purpose of supporting your murderous ideology? Identical twins do not have the same DNA, and again, the "personhood" non-argument never enters into the issue. Involuntary manslaughter is when the victim is unintentionally killed during the commission of an unlawful act. What unlawful act is the parasitic twin engaging in? The answer is "none." The unlawful act itself still requires INTENTION, which, of course, the child lacks. Thank you for demonstrating your foolishness, yet again, HoG.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 9 hours ago (4:49 PM)
You don't use "unique DNA" to determine whether or not an organism is human - you use the DNA pattern to establish that. The unique DNA is used to determine which person the DNA itself belongs to, by matching. Identical twins don't have a perfect DNA match - it's exceptionally similar, but not the same. It simply has no logical or scientific merit to deny conception as the standard for the beginning of life, particularly when you do so in contradiction of all the well-established evidence.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 11 hours ago (3:00 PM)
FLMC, you were lost long before Rich D. even posted his first comment on Townhall.com. What *precisely* divides "non-human being" from "human being," during pregnancy?
Way to buy into the media hype, Sullum. When asked, most of these "refugees" (illegal aliens) have replied that they are coming here because they were told they would be provided for, in large part because of things like the Dream Act, the multiple promises of amnesty and all the other open borders nonsense.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 12 hours ago (2:33 PM)
The point in "worrying" about a precise definition is only pertinent BECAUSE FLMC has chosen to base his whole argument on that undefined term. Can you cite the US law which states when "personhood" is "conferred"?
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 12 hours ago (2:30 PM)
Capital punishment and wars do not intentionally kill innocents - abortion does. That is the difference.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 12 hours ago (2:11 PM)
Where does it say...? Can you not read what I wrote, twice?!?! Exodus 20 is based on observable fact, at least Commandments 4-10, due if nothing else, to the natural consequences for disobeying parents, committing murder, adultery, lying and stealing.
In response to:

Defining Life

Anominus Wrote: 12 hours ago (2:03 PM)
FLMC, you are such an idiot. Miscarriage is to abortion what death-by-old-age is to murder - the difference is intent. We do all we can to preserve innocent human lives, but there is no technology to either prevent miscarriage or to preserve the lives of those lost to miscarriage in the earliest months. You are demanding that we use non-existent technology to save lives or shut up, in your quest to preserve the "right" to INTENTIONALLY MURDER CHILDREN.
Previous 11 - 20 Next