A fetus is not alive? Waaah?

[Valerie]

Yep.

As mentioned, Ethics 101 came quite a while for me, though some here could undoubtedly profit from an elementary review of basic ethical concepts, as well as the nature of logical argument.

You lost me at an infant is not a person.

I understand that argument can be tedious for some. Still, try to keep up!

Tedious indeed!

Sometimes I'm short on time, sometimes I'm short on patience, but believe me...I'm so far ahead it only LOOKS like I'm behind.

 

[manifold]

"isn't alive"

"It is alive"

Two contradictory statements. I really don't believe I can explain it in more simple terms.

It's OBVIOUS, to anyone with half a brain, what Ravi meant by what she said within the context of the discussion. What I'd like to know is...WHY haven't you started a thread about this JOKER Nemesis who thinks using big scientific words can hide his RIDICULOUS assertion that an infant is not a person???

Not exactly. In the context of the original discussion it was not obvious at all. But yes, her spin work in this thread certainly cleared it up a bit, except for the nagging part where she still insists that her original statement was truth. But of course if it was, it could stand on it's own without all the tapdancing. A simple mea culpa, "I didn't really say what I meant yadda yadda" would have put the matter to rest several posts ago. I know Ravi is capable, so I can only conclude she must be channelling her inner Shogun.

As for Nemesis, I found his first few posts in this thread somewhat interesting and thought provoking. But then he took a left turn at Alberquerque IMO, so I haven't read any of his subsequent posts or other's replies to them.

 

[ABikerSailor]

A fetus is not a human, at least, not until it develops a nervous system, usually around the 40 day mark.

Until then? It's no more "human" than a single sperm or an unfertilized egg. Just a mass of cells.

 

[manifold]

A fetus is not a human, at least, not until it develops a nervous system, usually around the 40 day mark.

Until then? It's no more "human" than a single sperm or an unfertilized egg. Just a mass of cells.

That's one man's subjective determination. One that I tend to agree with btw. But the point of the OP wasn't whether it was "a human," but rather whether it was alive. And that's not subjective at all.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Cancer is "alive" as well. But, it's still just a mass of cells.

And........not only is there a sound scientific/medical basis for it not being "human" until it has developed a nervous system, there are also Torah references as well.

 

[manifold]

Well, if the Torah says so, then who am I to question.

 

[krotchdog]

A fetus is not a human, at least, not until it develops a nervous system, usually around the 40 day mark.

Until then? It's no more "human" than a single sperm or an unfertilized egg. Just a mass of cells.

Thanks, I think this is a very important fact as far as this debate goes. Maybe the best post in this whole mess.

I wonder if consciousness is only developed within the nervous system.

Anyhow, I described the baby as a parasite, its just a word, just like fetus, terminology disconnects us from the actual event. Kinda like going to the supermarket to buy hamburger, if there was a term that gave us a complete understanding and feeling of what a cow lives through to become to becoming dinner we probabaly would not eat meat but terms do not elicit that kind of understanding.

The use of terms and pre-packaged food allows us to do things we may not otherwise do.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Valerie]

A fetus is not a human, at least, not until it develops a nervous system, usually around the 40 day mark.

Until then? It's no more "human" than a single sperm or an unfertilized egg. Just a mass of cells.

I agree.

That guy Nemesis was not talking about fetuses, he was saying that an INFANT is not a person.

 

[ABikerSailor]

After the 40 day mark and the development of a nervous system?

Abortions only in the case of saving the mothers life, rape, or incest.

 

[manifold]

That guy Nemesis was not talking about fetuses, he was saying that an INFANT is not a person.

Ok. I read a few more of his posts, with my trusty thesaurus in hand, and I still think he's friggin nuts. But why do you need me to start a thread calling attention to his nutbaggery? Haven't you figured out how to start a thread yourself yet?


nutbaggery, copyright manifold 2009. to be used only when paid for with pos rep royalty

 

[Valerie]

"isn't alive"

"It is alive"

Two contradictory statements. I really don't believe I can explain it in more simple terms.

It's OBVIOUS, to anyone with half a brain, what Ravi meant by what she said within the context of the discussion. What I'd like to know is...WHY haven't you started a thread about this JOKER Nemesis who thinks using big scientific words can hide his RIDICULOUS assertion that an infant is not a person???

Not exactly. In the context of the original discussion it was not obvious at all. But yes, her spin work in this thread certainly cleared it up a bit, except for the nagging part where she still insists that her original statement was truth. But of course if it was, it could stand on it's own without all the tapdancing. A simple mea culpa, "I didn't really say what I meant yadda yadda" would have put the matter to rest several posts ago. I know Ravi is capable, so I can only conclude she must be channelling her inner Shogun.

As for Nemesis, I found his first few posts in this thread somewhat interesting and thought provoking. But then he took a left turn at Alberquerque IMO, so I haven't read any of his subsequent posts or other's replies to them.

Not sure why you equate the clarification of a misunderstanding with a lie?

You really should read the thread, Shogun was on the correct side of the argument.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yo, Mani.......is that per use or per month for the rep and the use of "nutbaggery".

Additionally, is that anything like "tea bagging"? A lot of the GOP seem to be in a teabagging mood.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Shit Gun on the right side of ANYTHING is a stretch.

 

[Valerie]

That guy Nemesis was not talking about fetuses, he was saying that an INFANT is not a person.

Ok. I read a few more of his posts, with my trusty thesaurus in hand, and I still think he's friggin nuts. But why do you need me to start a thread calling attention to his nutbaggery? Haven't you figured out how to start a thread yourself yet?


nutbaggery, copyright manifold 2009. to be used only when paid for with pos rep royalty

I though that was your job! Never mind, it's all been said right here anyway.

 

[ABikerSailor]

But......you know.......that statement that an infant is not a person is kinda half right.......

Remember how in medieval times, kids were treated as little adults and forced to work in child labor factories?

But........that's also like saying an acorn is an oak tree.

 

[Newby]

Meh... this guy's one trick is to pull some bullshit utilitarian excuses from his hat just to be argumentative. Agnapostate does the same thing when rationalizing 44 year old men fucking 13 year old girls.

I can conceive of no logically sound utilitarian justification for that. Perhaps you'd care to explain that more fully?

It truly is the ethical rule set that appeals because it can be twisted in any way according to individual opinion of value based utility.

That is not an accurate assessment. Any measurement of utility must necessarily be dependent on an objective and rational application of felicific calculus, and thus must necessarily consider intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. Your reference appears to be to ethical egoism, though remains skewed and somewhat inaccurate.

I'd bet this guy is just flexing what he learned in ethics 101 this semester.

I'm afraid not, my boy. Ethics 101 came quite a while for me, though it would certainly aid your woeful ignorance.

I have to say, I'm surprised at where you draw a line. What is it in your idealogy that will not allow you to find justification in a 44 year old male having sex with a 13 year old female? Sound like 'ethical egoism' if you ask me.

 

[Shogun]

You may recall, Utilitarian ethics is also how Agnapedobear rationalized a 44 year old dude fucking a 13 year old girl.

 

[manifold]

Not sure why you equate the clarification of a misunderstanding with a lie?

I'm not equating them at all.

The clarification itself contradicts the original statement. If you say on the one hand that a fetus isn't alive, and then you start the clarification with "it is alive but..." that's more of a retraction than a clarification IMO. And it seems a bit odd to issue a retraction while insisting it isn't a retraction.

As for the lie, that was something else entirely. That was the false claim that a question was unanswered when in fact it was.

 

[Shogun]

Meh... this guy's one trick is to pull some bullshit utilitarian excuses from his hat just to be argumentative. Agnapostate does the same thing when rationalizing 44 year old men fucking 13 year old girls.

I can conceive of no logically sound utilitarian justification for that. Perhaps you'd care to explain that more fully?



That is not an accurate assessment. Any measurement of utility must necessarily be dependent on an objective and rational application of felicific calculus, and thus must necessarily consider intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, and extent. Your reference appears to be to ethical egoism, though remains skewed and somewhat inaccurate.

I'd bet this guy is just flexing what he learned in ethics 101 this semester.

I'm afraid not, my boy. Ethics 101 came quite a while for me, though it would certainly aid your woeful ignorance.

I have to say, I'm surprised at where you draw a line. What is it in your idealogy that will not allow you to find justification in a 44 year old male having sex with a 13 year old female? Sound like 'ethical egoism' if you ask me.

Are you kidding me? Seriously. Are you suggesting that it's MY "ethical egoism", and NOT outright pederastic motherfuckers looking for excuses to prey on children, that makes a sexual union between a 44 year old and 13 year old remain is the "sick fuck" category?

 

[manifold]

Yo, Mani.......is that per use or per month for the rep and the use of "nutbaggery".

Additionally, is that anything like "tea bagging"? A lot of the GOP seem to be in a teabagging mood.

The list price is one rep per use, but right now I'm offering a one-time discount for all takers to get three uses per rep.