Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
Nothing to add...
Exactly. So abortion is just as much emancipation as allowing women to kill whoever they want to (if you use that definition).
Edit: have you even read the comment you're reacting to?
(edited)
Exactly. So abortion is just as much emancipation as allowing women to kill whoever they want to (if you use that definition).
Edit: have you even read the comment you're reacting to?
(edited)
Exactly. So abortion is just as much emancipation as allowing women to kill whoever they want to (if you use that definition).
Not at all... I thought you can read french but no... And i can't find any translation to explicit the french definition...
If i try, emancipation is getting some freedom from slavery into someone was. Thus, emancipation and freedom are totally relied... As i explained to you...
And as you forgot to read me about my thought abou abortion, there is no killing at all in abortion laws... Thus, why are you trying to get me into your POV as i don't consider it right... It is your choice not mine... That's why i repeat... Nothing to add...
Not at all... I thought you can read french but no... And i can't find any translation to explicit the french definition...
If i try, emancipation is getting some freedom from slavery into someone was. Thus, emancipation and freedom are totally relied... As i explained to you...
And as you forgot to read me about my thought abou abortion, there is no killing at all in abortion laws... Thus, why are you trying to get me into your POV as i don't consider it right... It is your choice not mine... That's why i repeat... Nothing to add...
Then we can finish the discussion here.
Indeed, i already told about it before...
A discussion has ont obligatory the goal of finding a winner and a looser... You have ouyr POV, you can explain it to other and then try to define where we agree and where you find some differences and why...
If you read again, my only goal when i came first to this discussion is to know what think Sasha about embryo ? As i explained to him (surely too late but no one is perfect :-)...), it was the term of "killing" which i still find agressive. He has right to tell this and i have to tell him i find this agressive whatever he thinks about it. As i said to him, i prefer a person using words not agressive (as he is clever enough to know what could be the impact of this word for other POV) otherwise i react agressively also... If he came with only : i think embryo has a ilfe as soon as conception and no word about killing (even if i'm aware enough to know why he is relying the word to dath of the embryo as soon as he considers him alive)...
Obviously all of what i express here not only concern you so no need to answer to that.
By the way, i wish you and Sasha a good week-end :-) (and other who read obviously...)
A discussion has ont obligatory the goal of finding a winner and a looser... You have ouyr POV, you can explain it to other and then try to define where we agree and where you find some differences and why...
If you read again, my only goal when i came first to this discussion is to know what think Sasha about embryo ? As i explained to him (surely too late but no one is perfect :-)...), it was the term of "killing" which i still find agressive. He has right to tell this and i have to tell him i find this agressive whatever he thinks about it. As i said to him, i prefer a person using words not agressive (as he is clever enough to know what could be the impact of this word for other POV) otherwise i react agressively also... If he came with only : i think embryo has a ilfe as soon as conception and no word about killing (even if i'm aware enough to know why he is relying the word to dath of the embryo as soon as he considers him alive)...
Obviously all of what i express here not only concern you so no need to answer to that.
By the way, i wish you and Sasha a good week-end :-) (and other who read obviously...)
Sasha76 to Charles Hill 2012-10-30 10:13:51
That's what I say, ridiculousness!
As a brain scientist puts it: "the fetus and neonate appears incapable of experiencing or generating 'true' emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity."Or do you, as a non educated scientists, also know this better as educated biologists as you know it also better as astrologers?
That's what I say, ridiculousness!
As a brain scientist puts it: "the fetus and neonate appears incapable of experiencing or generating 'true' emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity."Or do you, as a non educated scientists, also know this better as educated biologists as you know it also better as astrologers?
Or do you, as a non educated scientists, also know this better as educated biologists as you know it also better as astrologers?
Don't pretend the academic world agrees on this. They don't. There are biologists in favor of abortion and against abortion. Saying you're right because some biologists agree with you is quite pointless.
(And you don't know what qualification Sasha has.)
Don't pretend the academic world agrees on this. They don't. There are biologists in favor of abortion and against abortion. Saying you're right because some biologists agree with you is quite pointless.
(And you don't know what qualification Sasha has.)
No I don't know it exactly, but I'm pretty sure he isn't a biologist.
And yes, some won't agree with others, but they can't and don't ignore facts when it is their job and studied this subject for many years. So at least they know what they are talking about which is based on knowledge, not only on some stupid thing as believe without knowledge (and no, sasha isn't talking about morals but believe and that's not the same, as abortion after rape is morally completely understandable and acceptable, to forbid women from doing this is morally wrong).
Besides, it's just ridiculous to say removing some cells equals murder.
(edited)
And yes, some won't agree with others, but they can't and don't ignore facts when it is their job and studied this subject for many years. So at least they know what they are talking about which is based on knowledge, not only on some stupid thing as believe without knowledge (and no, sasha isn't talking about morals but believe and that's not the same, as abortion after rape is morally completely understandable and acceptable, to forbid women from doing this is morally wrong).
Besides, it's just ridiculous to say removing some cells equals murder.
(edited)
as abortion after rape is morally completely understandable and acceptable, to forbid women from doing this is morally wrong
Which is your opinion ;-)
Which is your opinion ;-)
Well, perhaps. But on the other hand, what kind of a monster must someone be to force women to keep a baby after something dramatic as rape and let those women be confronted with this rape the rest of their lives by having to raise the result of that. So in this case I don't think the opposite of morally right is morally wrong, it is just wrong and inhuman to force these women to keep it and therefore it has nothing to do with morals anymore but only with their religious crap, which keep these people from understanding the morally right way.
But on the other hand, what kind of a monster must someone be
Oh dear.
therefore it has nothing to do with morals anymore but only with their religious crap
After all this time, you still don't see that one can be against abortion without having a religion?
But hey, never let the facts stand in the way of a good story!
Oh dear.
therefore it has nothing to do with morals anymore but only with their religious crap
After all this time, you still don't see that one can be against abortion without having a religion?
But hey, never let the facts stand in the way of a good story!
The start of this discussion was that after rape women can't have an abortion because these idiots believe that getting pregnant is what god's intention is of having sex (apparently also when it's not out of free will) and because of that abortion would be against an act of god.
So it's unimportant to say religion has nothing to do with this discussion as the statement is based completely on a religious view. And to leave the rape part out of the abortion part makes it a completely different discussion, and that's ok, but then we also have to look at known facts and not only morals, and in that case a fact is that cells isn't equal to life.
So it's unimportant to say religion has nothing to do with this discussion as the statement is based completely on a religious view. And to leave the rape part out of the abortion part makes it a completely different discussion, and that's ok, but then we also have to look at known facts and not only morals, and in that case a fact is that cells isn't equal to life.
a fact is that cells isn't equal to life
Once again, never let facts get in the way of a good story.
Once again, never let facts get in the way of a good story.
Yes, and the seed of fruit equals an apple .... :/
No I don't know it exactly, but I'm pretty sure he isn't a biologist.
Actually, I am well known a marine biologist. Last name Constanza.
Besides, it's just ridiculous to say removing some cells equals murder.
Well, usually, when an wiling and knowing action results in reducing the number of persons on Earth, that action is called homicide. All other examples that you list here are omissions, i.e. failures to follow through.
You were also a sparkle in your mother's eyes and nobody could ever blame her if she got distracted and found something better to do. You would not exist due to an omission. But as soon as you were conceived, someone needed to perform a willing and knowing action to remove you from the face of the Earth. You needed to be killed. And that is a fact.
Actually, I am well known a marine biologist. Last name Constanza.
Besides, it's just ridiculous to say removing some cells equals murder.
Well, usually, when an wiling and knowing action results in reducing the number of persons on Earth, that action is called homicide. All other examples that you list here are omissions, i.e. failures to follow through.
You were also a sparkle in your mother's eyes and nobody could ever blame her if she got distracted and found something better to do. You would not exist due to an omission. But as soon as you were conceived, someone needed to perform a willing and knowing action to remove you from the face of the Earth. You needed to be killed. And that is a fact.
you don't reduce the number, as the unborn is not counted in before 24 weeks of pregnancy