On October 25 2012 13:12 Swazi Spring wrote: The DNC chairman being asked some serious questions that were omitted from the debate. Is she ignorant or just a liar?
She's both. She needs to be fired. Her tenure has been a disaster.
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:07 Romantic wrote: [quote]
Obviously the Constitution does not grand any such right to bodily autonomy. There is a reason drafts, anti-drug laws, strip searches, etc are Constitutional.... because there is no such right in the Constitution.
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I am arguing that a child is a person. The issue is simple. You believe a child is the same as a fetus. Please outline reason why this is so. Arguing that a fetus is a person because my moral beliefs are that a fetus is a person is circular reasoning.
The reason it's important is this. You're not only arguing that a fetus is the same as a child, but doing so within the context of a raped woman trying to terminate her pregnancy. If your position isn't even rooted in reason as a bare minimum, then the raped woman's rights to terminate her pregnancy are worth far more.
You're using large words and eloquent phrase's so you act like that makes your arguments irrefutable. There isn't any logical reason for me to debate any further with someone who's so close minded and ignorant that they can't show the smallest hint that their position could be changed.
I'm going to do the american thing and try to find victory in this battle. You aren't american so your opinions matter less in a thread that's about US politics.
So now tilting this discussion back to the election. Is gay rights a civil issue or no? I watched a local news cast that predicts that the gay marriage ban is going to pass in Minnesota because it use's only white people and no minorities in its ads.
On October 25 2012 13:11 Sermokala wrote: To be clear on my stance I think that abortion is wrong and shouldn't be allowed but if we do make it not legal people are still going to get abortions and instead do it in an unsafe and would endanger their lives for an abortion in back ally doctor rooms and try to do it on their own. It would be a worse situation if we made it not legal now so to speak. I would however wish that it would be restricted to case's of rape, incest. and medical reasons to save the life of the mother
Also Romney is the worst republican candidate that I've ever seen. The fact that this race is close is a joke. the fact that he has a chance to win is a bigger joke.
I see. Well that changes things a bit I guess. I still disagree, but not nearly so vehemently. I'm against abortion once the fetus reaches a certain age (late), but before that point there is no reasonable moral justification that I can see that is based on the baby's rights.
You do realize that the "exception" stance is the one that a vast majority of social conservatives proscribe to, don't you? The "abortion is wrong all the time" is actually a very small minority stance.
Misread your post thought you meant conservatives supported abortion during first trimester.
This is so stupid that this discussion comes up every few days, and i see the same bullshit statements over and over, can't believe some of you think it's ok to dictate what a women can or can not do with her body when it's a decision that should be between her and her doctor, not you and her doctor.
On October 25 2012 13:12 Swazi Spring wrote: The DNC chairman being asked some serious questions that were omitted from the debate. Is she ignorant or just a liar?
It feels like economic growth and prosperity is against Obama's agenda. Spreading the wealth so everything is "fair" for others looking into starting a small business is just plain dumb. Obama believes that the government has the ability to resolve our problems while Romney believes in private enterprises and has distrust in government intervention. Obama favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
Its so irritating to hear Obama say the rich need to be taxed a little bit more to spread the wealth around. Unemployment is only bad because banks don't lend as much since 2008's crisis, trillions of dollars are just sitting around doing nothing within banks and there's idle workers. If you aren't building anything than your SCVs and the workers inside your barrackses and factories will be idle and not getting pay checks.
Those are just my 2 cents, Obama is going to drag this recession on for another 4 years.
We aren't in a recession anymore. That ended a while ago. The free market has demonstrably proven to not always be stable. That is the entire basis for Keynesian economics. Your conclusion about why unemployment is bad is also completely unfounded.
Drove past a "For Sale" sign on a bale of hay out in somebody's yard this afternoon, not sure I agree with the bolded part at all. Times are tough.
As someone who has a lot of family members in the farming industry I can say this doesn't make one bit of sense. A lot of croup farmers are making millions off of growing corn. Everyone else is feeling the burn because of this. the reason why you see more people selling hay is because its a cheaper alternative to them feeding their pigs and other farm animals with corn. The recession has nothing to do with people selling hay in front of their yard.
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I am arguing that a child is a person. The issue is simple. You believe a child is the same as a fetus. Please outline reason why this is so. Arguing that a fetus is a person because my moral beliefs are that a fetus is a person is circular reasoning.
The reason it's important is this. You're not only arguing that a fetus is the same as a child, but doing so within the context of a raped woman trying to terminate her pregnancy. If your position isn't even rooted in reason as a bare minimum, then the raped woman's rights to terminate her pregnancy are worth far more.
You're using large words and eloquent phrase's so you act like that makes your arguments irrefutable. There isn't any logical reason for me to debate any further with someone who's so close minded and ignorant that they can't show the smallest hint that their position could be changed.
I'm going to do the american thing and try to find victory in this battle. You aren't american so your opinions matter less in a thread that's about US politics.
So now tilting this discussion back to the election. Is gay rights a civil issue or no? I watched a local news cast that predicts that the gay marriage ban is going to pass in Minnesota because it use's only white people and no minorities in its ads.
Lol ok.. can I answer the question you've posed or am I too Canadian? I promise not to use "big words"
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: [quote]
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I am arguing that a child is a person. The issue is simple. You believe a child is the same as a fetus. Please outline reason why this is so. Arguing that a fetus is a person because my moral beliefs are that a fetus is a person is circular reasoning.
The reason it's important is this. You're not only arguing that a fetus is the same as a child, but doing so within the context of a raped woman trying to terminate her pregnancy. If your position isn't even rooted in reason as a bare minimum, then the raped woman's rights to terminate her pregnancy are worth far more.
You're using large words and eloquent phrase's so you act like that makes your arguments irrefutable. There isn't any logical reason for me to debate any further with someone who's so close minded and ignorant that they can't show the smallest hint that their position could be changed.
I'm going to do the american thing and try to find victory in this battle. You aren't american so your opinions matter less in a thread that's about US politics.
So now tilting this discussion back to the election. Is gay rights a civil issue or no? I watched a local news cast that predicts that the gay marriage ban is going to pass in Minnesota because it use's only white people and no minorities in its ads.
Lol ok.. can I answer the question you've posed or am I too Canadian? I promise not to use "big words"
You're demanding proof of something that is unprovable. Your stance is just as unprovable, so what's the point?
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote: [quote]
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I am arguing that a child is a person. The issue is simple. You believe a child is the same as a fetus. Please outline reason why this is so. Arguing that a fetus is a person because my moral beliefs are that a fetus is a person is circular reasoning.
The reason it's important is this. You're not only arguing that a fetus is the same as a child, but doing so within the context of a raped woman trying to terminate her pregnancy. If your position isn't even rooted in reason as a bare minimum, then the raped woman's rights to terminate her pregnancy are worth far more.
You're using large words and eloquent phrase's so you act like that makes your arguments irrefutable. There isn't any logical reason for me to debate any further with someone who's so close minded and ignorant that they can't show the smallest hint that their position could be changed.
I'm going to do the american thing and try to find victory in this battle. You aren't american so your opinions matter less in a thread that's about US politics.
So now tilting this discussion back to the election. Is gay rights a civil issue or no? I watched a local news cast that predicts that the gay marriage ban is going to pass in Minnesota because it use's only white people and no minorities in its ads.
Lol ok.. can I answer the question you've posed or am I too Canadian? I promise not to use "big words"
You're demanding proof of something that is unprovable. Your stance is just as unprovable, so what's the point?
No I'm not I'm asking for an argument that is based in reason. Sorry if that hasn't been clear.
Anyone whose political ideology revolves around "distrust" is the sort of person who thinks putting up a giant douchey banner is going to change anything, say anything meaningful, or be otherwise justified in any manner. Thanks for the oversized picture though, I enjoy seeing reminders of Midwest highway politics.
There's a big difference between distrust in government and distrust in country there cowboy. Was that your conclusion based on your interpretation of what government is and what country is? And the picture was taken in New Jersey which is definitely not south west, your a bit off.
Lol you may answer my question. Being in a state where the democrats can't oust bachmann makes you lower your expectations but to I guess they've failed in 30 some states now where a gay marriage ban has been on the ballot.
I've heard from a lot of gay rights people that its not a civil issue which confuse's me and worries me for it ever passing though a federal level let alone get though the liberal states like California even.
Anyone whose political ideology revolves around "distrust" is the sort of person who thinks putting up a giant douchey banner is going to change anything, say anything meaningful, or be otherwise justified in any manner. Thanks for the oversized picture though, I enjoy seeing reminders of Midwest highway politics.
There's a big difference between distrust in government and distrust in country there cowboy. Was that your conclusion based on your interpretation of what government is and what country is? And the picture was taken in New Jersey which is definitely not south west, your a bit off.
I made no conclusion; I'm simply pointing out that framing anything systemic with the word "distrust" reeks of egoistic self-importance. And I care not for where the photo was actually taken, it simply reminded me of the sort of signs I saw growing up in Ohio. (south west? wtf?)
It feels like economic growth and prosperity is against Obama's agenda. Spreading the wealth so everything is "fair" for others looking into starting a small business is just plain dumb. Obama believes that the government has the ability to resolve our problems while Romney believes in private enterprises and has distrust in government intervention. Obama favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
Its so irritating to hear Obama say the rich need to be taxed a little bit more to spread the wealth around. Unemployment is only bad because banks don't lend as much since 2008's crisis, trillions of dollars are just sitting around doing nothing within banks and there's idle workers. If you aren't building anything than your SCVs and the workers inside your barrackses and factories will be idle and not getting pay checks.
Those are just my 2 cents, Obama is going to drag this recession on for another 4 years.
We aren't in a recession anymore. That ended a while ago. The free market has demonstrably proven to not always be stable. That is the entire basis for Keynesian economics. Your conclusion about why unemployment is bad is also completely unfounded.
Drove past a "For Sale" sign on a bale of hay out in somebody's yard this afternoon, not sure I agree with the bolded part at all. Times are tough.
As someone who has a lot of family members in the farming industry I can say this doesn't make one bit of sense. A lot of croup farmers are making millions off of growing corn. Everyone else is feeling the burn because of this. the reason why you see more people selling hay is because its a cheaper alternative to them feeding their pigs and other farm animals with corn. The recession has nothing to do with people selling hay in front of their yard.
It's a joke, bud.
You and sevencck should either agree to be more careful/specific with semantics ("fetus" from conception to birth is inaccurate, and possibly misleading), or just re-read this same argument a few hundred pages back. Surely you've noticed that the abortion thing comes up a lot.
(Also:
I'm going to do the american thing and try to find victory in this battle. You aren't american so your opinions matter less in a thread that's about US politics
On October 25 2012 13:55 Sermokala wrote: Lol you may answer my question. Being in a state where the democrats can't oust bachmann makes you lower your expectations but to I guess they've failed in 30 some states now where a gay marriage ban has been on the ballot.
I've heard from a lot of gay rights people that its not a civil issue which confuse's me and worries me for it ever passing though a federal level let alone get though the liberal states like California even.
I don't think it's a civil issue which can be voted on. I think it's the same thing as the 13th 14th 15th and 19th amendments. Sounds like we're in agreement on Bachmann.
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:11 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Thanks for providing exceptions (under specific circumstances) that prove the rule.
Let me put it this way, do you think it would be Constitutionally permissable for the government to force people to donate blood/marrow/organs to save other people's lives? Or would you consider that a violation of people's rights?
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I am arguing that a child is a person. The issue is simple. You believe a child is the same as a fetus. Please outline reason why this is so. Arguing that a fetus is a person because my moral beliefs are that a fetus is a person is circular reasoning.
The reason it's important is this. You're not only arguing that a fetus is the same as a child, but doing so within the context of a raped woman trying to terminate her pregnancy. If your position isn't even rooted in reason as a bare minimum, then the raped woman's rights to terminate her pregnancy are worth far more.
You're using large words and eloquent phrase's so you act like that makes your arguments irrefutable. There isn't any logical reason for me to debate any further with someone who's so close minded and ignorant that they can't show the smallest hint that their position could be changed.
I'm going to do the american thing and try to find victory in this battle. You aren't american so your opinions matter less in a thread that's about US politics.
So now tilting this discussion back to the election. Is gay rights a civil issue or no? I watched a local news cast that predicts that the gay marriage ban is going to pass in Minnesota because it use's only white people and no minorities in its ads.
On October 25 2012 13:52 Swazi Spring wrote: The left-wing media is trolling, claiming the election already happened and Obama won: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zYi2xn1jo
You have a point somewhere? It was probably just a test that accidentally went onto a live feed.
Edit: You know what? You're probably right. The election has already been decided and Obama is in control. Don't bother voting, election's over! ...
On October 25 2012 13:52 Swazi Spring wrote: The left-wing media is trolling, claiming the election already happened and Obama won: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zYi2xn1jo
You have a point somewhere? It was probably just a test that accidentally went onto a live feed.
Left-wing media is so biased that even their "tests" try to show Obama winning.
On October 25 2012 12:24 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Are pro-lifers here against sex ed and contraceptives?
I would say I'm against it on the grounds of people thinking that because they use contraceptives that means they can't become pregnant (which is a big problem for teenagers. Sex ed has statistically shown that it lowers the teenage pregnant rate so yes I do support it.
On October 25 2012 12:25 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:21 Sermokala wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:17 sevencck wrote:
On October 25 2012 12:13 DeepElemBlues wrote: [quote]
Yet you already acknowledged that there is a distinction by using the word "temporary"; there is no temporary donation of blood/marrow/organs. It's not quite apples and oranges but it isn't far off.
No comparing a fetus to a child is apples and oranges.
Thats your opinion and you have a right to it. I however and a lot of other people believe that its wrong. And that point alone is the reason why there is so much fighting about it. There really isn't a way to get over that difference of opinion on the person hood debate.
Since you disagree, please tell me how a fetus is the same as a child.
Simply because they are going to become a person.
Because from the moment of conception (which is a really gray area when this happens but for the sake of arguing lets just say when the fetus is developing in the womb) That fetus starts developing all the things (a brain a heart fingerprints ect.) and the only way that this doesn't happen if the fetus is physically killed by medical or in the case of abortion a physical action. There is no random chance for that fetus to not become a person, something physically has to happen for this fetus to not be born. The same things that would kill a fetus would kill a child or adult human being.
I'm no great wordsmith or debater so I tend not to really try and speak for a lot of people on something but thats my attempt at explaining it.
This is not a rational argument, because it argues that a child is not a person, and thus concludes that a fetus and child are the same in that they can both become one. There is no argument based in reason to support the contention that a child is not a person.
How is a child not a person. A person is just an endearing term to describe another human being. Your trying to stretch logic and reasoning so much to support your point that your coming off completely irrational and unreasonable.
Like you can argue that a fetus is a person because of moral beliefs but you can say that a 4 year old or a adult is any different as a person. If your using that argument then you can stretch it out to people whos brains haven't developed or bodies haven't developed past what it did in the womb, that they aren't a person.
I'm not sure I understand your response. I am arguing that a child is a person. The issue is simple. You believe a child is the same as a fetus. Please outline reason why this is so. Arguing that a fetus is a person because my moral beliefs are that a fetus is a person is circular reasoning.
The reason it's important is this. You're not only arguing that a fetus is the same as a child, but doing so within the context of a raped woman trying to terminate her pregnancy. If your position isn't even rooted in reason as a bare minimum, then the raped woman's rights to terminate her pregnancy are worth far more.
You're using large words and eloquent phrase's so you act like that makes your arguments irrefutable. There isn't any logical reason for me to debate any further with someone who's so close minded and ignorant that they can't show the smallest hint that their position could be changed.
I'm going to do the american thing and try to find victory in this battle. You aren't american so your opinions matter less in a thread that's about US politics.
So now tilting this discussion back to the election. Is gay rights a civil issue or no? I watched a local news cast that predicts that the gay marriage ban is going to pass in Minnesota because it use's only white people and no minorities in its ads.
What else would it be?
thats what I've been saying. But a lot of gay rights supporters say it isn't a civil rights issue even on tl a while back when there was some gay marriage thread going on.
Minnesota is the state that elected a professional wrestler to be its Governor(and hes still making god damm shows on tv) we don't need another embaressment to paint us in a bad light when we do so many other things well.
On October 25 2012 13:52 Swazi Spring wrote: The left-wing media is trolling, claiming the election already happened and Obama won: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2zYi2xn1jo
You have a point somewhere? It was probably just a test that accidentally went onto a live feed.
Left-wing media is so biased that even their "tests" try to show Obama winning.
Or maybe that's how it's projected to be right now so that's what they went with? You still have no relevant point to this thread. Don't know why I expect anything substantial from you, but I'll keep hoping you shape up.
![[image loading]](http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/156468_319183104856472_2030002718_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yFiR45zcQjo/UIiwvQ4JClI/AAAAAAAAALU/a795jMbW66o/s1600/obama+funny.jpg)
2394
707
335
EPT
