My baby is pro-choice!

[Alonzo]

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/01/22/ba_abortion3211.jpg

[Wndrtch]

Has anybody asked her, how her "tissue" is doing? Did anybody at that rallly, refer to it as a "baby", I wonder?

[Pookie]

Twenty years from now that kid is going to be mad, I bet.
What a dumb thing to do!
Purrs,
Pookie

[AnnEsthesia]

Or not. Maybe the child will feel that it is their body and their right to decide what happens to it?

[PostmodernProphet]

anybody want to give odds on what her baby's choice would be?.......

[Wndrtch]

anybody want to give odds on what her baby's choice would be?.......


...with HER as it's Mom?

"Take me now, Lord!"

[AnnEsthesia]

Let me see. I was a baby... and I am pro-choice... so odds are good that the baby could turn out pro-choice.

[AlanC]

I'm just glad she realizes that what she is carrying is a child with a mind of its own :thumbsup:

[AnnEsthesia]

Wow, you all really do get bent about the absolute dumbest crap.

[AlanC]

Not bent really, I just find it kind of ironic in her choice of words for that particular message is all. I mean, if she wants to paint some political point on her stomache you would think she would think it through a bit better than that is all.

[AnnEsthesia]

She is pro-choice and has chosen to have the child. Why is that a bad message? Better than being anti-choice and feeling you have the right to dictate what happens in another human being's body. Or if you get to say what happens inside me, do i get to decide what happens in your body? Penis piercings all around if that is the case.

[AlanC]

I didn't say it was a bad message. I said it was an ironic message. Because, the language of the pro choice movement used to describe unborn children is to describe them as a fetus.

This woman, by saying that what she is carrying is "my baby" and attributing to it the ability to hold rational positions, is actually making the pro-life argument that the child is already a formed human.

I realize that is not what she meant, but, that is why it is ironic. As to the penis percing, I think I will pass, thanks just the same.

[PostmodernProphet]

Let me see. I was a baby... and I am pro-choice... so odds are good that the baby could turn out pro-choice.


I give you two to one odds the kid chooses to live.......

[AnnEsthesia]

Um... Prophet. You do understand that one can be pro-choice and never have an abortion, right? God, are you really that narrow-sighted?

[Go Fish]

Obviously, the father (s?) wasn't very choosy.

[AnnEsthesia]

I guess with all your whore references, we can ass misogynist to your list of fine attributes, eh fish?

[PostmodernProphet]

Um... Prophet. You do understand that one can be pro-choice and never have an abortion, right? God, are you really that narrow-sighted?

I expect it would be rather hard for the kid to be "pro-choice" if it chose to be aborted.....are you really that dense?.....

[AnnEsthesia]

Um... Who said that the baby wants to be aborted? The mother was making a statement that you and the government should never have any say on what she does or does not do with her body. And yes, I know... blah blah... where are the rights of the lump of cells that could become a human...

I guess if you are going to believe in a great spaghetti monster in the sky, it is easy to believe that there is something sacred about being a human.

[PostmodernProphet]

/shrugs...well, at least you're consistent....you kill off both gods AND humans......

[AnnEsthesia]

Wow! I killed god? YAY! Do I win a prize?

[PostmodernProphet]

Wow! I killed god? YAY! Do I win a prize?


yes, a limited edition miniature of Nietzsche's gravestone.....

I understand it's engraved....
God is dead. Neitzsche, circa 1882
Neitzsche is dead. God, circa 1900

[AnnEsthesia]

Awesome! Far better than the hand basket that fucking god gave me.

[Osborn F. Enready]

An unborn has no choice in life or death before birth. It is a victim of circumstance, and has no rights, or ability to say either way.

[PostmodernProphet]

and has no rights

we're working on it, we're working on it.......

[Alonzo]

and has no rights

we're working on it, we're working on it.......


I'm going to start campaigning for broccoli rights, they're just as smart as most fetuses! Why shouldn't they have rights too?

[AnnEsthesia]

Alonzo, I am waiting for all animals to have rights, since they are far smarter than even a newborn. If an embryo has rights, surely an elephant, dolphin, dog or chimpanzee should too.

[PostmodernProphet]

I love it when seculars demonstrate their ignorance about science.....it's so satisfying after reading all those posts about how Christianity and science don't mix.........

[preservanation]

I wonder if there are some libs out there who would like to share in a breakfast of condor eggs with me?

[AnnEsthesia]

I wonder if there are some libs out there who would like to share in a breakfast of condor eggs with me?


I would if they were not endangered.

[Osborn F. Enready]

prophet said:
I love it when seculars demonstrate their ignorance about science.....it's so satisfying after reading all those posts about how Christianity and science don't mix.........

Coming from a debater who uses science when it aids his argument, and denies it the rest of the time when being applied to HIS view of reality. :clapper: :madlaugh:

[AnnEsthesia]

Osborn, there is no arguing with Prophet. He uses faith and emotions like a club and then sits up there on his high horse condemning you if you disagree. He is the exact type of person that causes non-religious people to not want to have anything to do with religion.

[Alonzo]

I love it when seculars demonstrate their ignorance about science.....it's so satisfying after reading all those posts about how Christianity and science don't mix.........


Yes, because science shows a two month old fetus has a fully functioning brain :rolleyes:.

[preservanation]

I wonder if there are some libs out there who would like to share in a breakfast of condor eggs with me?


I would if they were not endangered.

My point exactly!
Maybe if we could give human life the same status and 'rights' as libs bestow upon the condor, we could come to an agreement.

[AnnEsthesia]

Prove that humans are an endangered species, preserva. Condors, except for the fact that they are almost extinct, are no more special than the cardinal out at my feeder.

[PostmodernProphet]

prophet said:
I love it when seculars demonstrate their ignorance about science.....it's so satisfying after reading all those posts about how Christianity and science don't mix.........

Coming from a debater who uses science when it aids his argument, and denies it the rest of the time when being applied to HIS view of reality. :clapper: :madlaugh:


interesting....I have never denied science....I have, on other occasions, taken issues with seculars who are ignorant of science....such as those who think the theory of evolution applies to the issues of origin of life and even origin of the universe....

in those debates as well, I have demonstrated the ignorance of seculars with respect to science.....thus I have been completely consistent....[hr]Yes, because science shows a two month old fetus has a fully functioning brain

ah, is that the rationale behind approving abortion?.....what do you do with birthed children or even adults who don't have fully functioning brains then?.......if you are going to claim you have a rational basis for excluding the unborn, don't you think you ought to be able to present a rational basis?.....[hr]He uses faith and emotions like a club

the truth is, I have been using logic like a spear.....and all the holes in your position demonstrate it's effectiveness.....[hr]Prove that humans are an endangered species, preserva.

interesting, so since we have a lot of them, we ought to be able to kill them with impunity?......

[BoogyMan]

Has anybody asked her, how her "tissue" is doing? Did anybody at that rallly, refer to it as a "baby", I wonder?


Good question Wndrtch, I have heard over and over how terrible it is to pass on a belief system to a child without letting them discover things on their own, I guess that is only if you are passing on a conservative belief system.

[AnnEsthesia]

interesting, so since we have a lot of them, we ought to be able to kill them with impunity?......


No, because we are overpopulated as it is, there is no inherent sacredness to being human, unless you are looking at it from a religious perspective. We are animals, nothing more. We are no more or less important than any other species on this planet.

You seem to feel being a human is a sacred thing. Some of us are more objective in our opinions.

[BoogyMan]

interesting, so since we have a lot of them, we ought to be able to kill them with impunity?......


No, because we are overpopulated as it is, there is no inherent sacredness to being human, unless you are looking at it from a religious perspective. We are animals, nothing more. We are no more or less important than any other species on this planet.

In other words PMP, she said "yes we should be able to kill them with impugnity."


You seem to feel being a human is a sacred thing. Some of us are more objective in our opinions.

Objective in your own eyes only AnnE. Humans are not just animals.

[PostmodernProphet]

We are animals, nothing more.

remind me never to send you to the store for meat.......

[AnnEsthesia]

interesting, so since we have a lot of them, we ought to be able to kill them with impunity?......


No, because we are overpopulated as it is, there is no inherent sacredness to being human, unless you are looking at it from a religious perspective. We are animals, nothing more. We are no more or less important than any other species on this planet.

In other words PMP, she said "yes we should be able to kill them with impugnity."


Hmm... please show me where I said that. Otherwise, you really should stop listening to the voices in your head, because they are wrong.



You seem to feel being a human is a sacred thing. Some of us are more objective in our opinions.

Objective in your own eyes only AnnE. Humans are not just animals.


Yes we are. Just because your religious view tells you different, does not change the fact that we are, in fact, biologically animals. We may be of a higher order, but we are no less animals.[hr]
We are animals, nothing more.

remind me never to send you to the store for meat.......


Yes, because I am a cannibal. Come here, I am hungry.

[BoogyMan]

Hmm... please show me where I said that. Otherwise, you really should stop listening to the voices in your head, because they are wrong.

LOL, this is why I enjoy your posts so much AnnE. You, by your commentary validated PMP's assertion, and then strenuously deny having done so. :D


You seem to feel being a human is a sacred thing. Some of us are more objective in our opinions.


Objective in your own eyes only AnnE. Humans are not just animals.

Yes we are. Just because your religious view tells you different, does not change the fact that we are, in fact, biologically animals. We may be of a higher order, but we are no less animals.

I am not even basing this on my religious view Anne, how many animals can talk like a human? How many have the cognitive abilities of a human? How many can tackle complex problems whether they be cognitive or physical at the same level as a human? The answer is none. It is the cognitive abilities and conscience that make us more than just animals AnnE.

[AnnEsthesia]

Hmm... please show me where I said that. Otherwise, you really should stop listening to the voices in your head, because they are wrong.

LOL, this is why I enjoy your posts so much AnnE. You, by your commentary validated PMP's assertion, and then strenuously deny having done so. :D


If you say so. :ponder: Or maybe you are just interpreting what I say to fit your pre-conceived ideas. Nah! Never you Boogy. But please can you explain to me my thoughts on life on other planets? Thanks!

BTW, please show me where I support every and all act of abortion. Or perhaps you should get your minds out of your own 'evil abortion supporting liberal' bias and try to remember (I know it is hard) that not everyone is what you think they are.



You seem to feel being a human is a sacred thing. Some of us are more objective in our opinions.


Objective in your own eyes only AnnE. Humans are not just animals.

Yes we are. Just because your religious view tells you different, does not change the fact that we are, in fact, biologically animals. We may be of a higher order, but we are no less animals.

I am not even basing this on my religious view Anne, how many animals can talk like a human? How many have the cognitive abilities of a human? How many can tackle complex problems whether they be cognitive or physical at the same level as a human? The answer is none. It is the cognitive abilities and conscience that make us more than just animals AnnE.


No, they just mean that we are complex animals. But we are still animals. We are not plants, we are not minerals, we are animals. Elephants communicate, so do dolphins. Chimpanzees can problem solve, so can other animals.

We are animals, whether you can accept that or not. We are not special. We are just an evolved animal and when our species fades, another one will come up through the evolutionary tree and take our place. We are NOT irreplaceable, nor are we something all that special.

[BoogyMan]

If you say so. :ponder: Or maybe you are just interpreting what I say to fit your pre-conceived ideas. Nah! Never you Boogy. But please can you explain to me my thoughts on life on other planets? Thanks!

BTW, please show me where I support every and all act of abortion. Or perhaps you should get your minds out of your own 'evil abortion supporting liberal' bias and try to remember (I know it is hard) that not everyone is what you think they are.

ROFL, those tactics don't work on me AnnE, I don't get angry nor will I let you drag me off the topic. Cheers.


No, they just mean that we are complex animals. But we are still animals. We are not plants, we are not minerals, we are animals. Elephants communicate, so do dolphins. Chimpanzees can problem solve, so can other animals.

You missed simple sentence structure that invalidates your response here AnnE. Words like "at the same level as a human" or "like a human," that make your retort of very little relevance to what I asserted.


We are animals, whether you can accept that or not. We are not special. We are just an evolved animal and when our species fades, another one will come up through the evolutionary tree and take our place. We are NOT irreplaceable, nor are we something all that special.

Prove this assertion AnnE. I don't think you are an animal, nor do I see anyone else as an animal, as you and everyone else deserve much more respect than that.

People are NOT here to feed other species, people are here as the ruling organism on the planet, the top of the food chain where all lesser organisms cannot be placed.

[AnnEsthesia]

Prove this assertion AnnE. I don't think you are an animal, nor do I see anyone else as an animal, as you and everyone else deserve much more respect than that.

People are NOT here to feed other species, people are here as the ruling organism on the planet, the top of the food chain where all lesser organisms cannot be placed.


Really? No other species has ever been at the top of the food chain and when we fade from history, nothing will come up to take our place at the top of the food chain?

And whether you want to acknowledge that you and I are animals or not, that does not change the fact that we are, in fact, animals. That is the branch of evolution from whence we come.

[BoogyMan]

Prove this assertion AnnE. I don't think you are an animal, nor do I see anyone else as an animal, as you and everyone else deserve much more respect than that.

People are NOT here to feed other species, people are here as the ruling organism on the planet, the top of the food chain where all lesser organisms cannot be placed.


Really? No other species has ever been at the top of the food chain and when we fade from history, nothing will come up to take our place at the top of the food chain?

And whether you want to acknowledge that you and I are animals or not, that does not change the fact that we are, in fact, animals. That is the branch of evolution from whence we come.


So you cannot prove that I am an animal, right? I may not have any sway over your assertion that we are animals, but I don't find any fact involved to this point.

[AnnEsthesia]

Boogy, which biological classification does Human fall under? Take your time, I know it is scary.

[BoogyMan]

Oooo, you are now asserting that biological taxonomy rules the day with regard to whether or not we are animals?

Kingdom=animalia
Phylum=chordata
Class=mammalia

There it is, there it is! It says animalia! I see it! LOL

I am not an animal no matter how the evolutionists and secular humanists desperately attempt to put me there, and you have yet to provide any kind of proof otherwise dear lady.

[AnnEsthesia]

Here, I will really shake your world... not only are we animals, but we are also mammals! SCARY![hr]Prove that you are NOT biologically an animal. I would like to see it, Boogy. What are you, if not an animal just as every other animal on this planet is an animal.

What are you? A rock?[hr]That is ok Boogy. It is easier to play the monkey that cannot see, hear or talk than it is to admit that gee, you may be just like every other animal on the planet and are only special because of where in the food chain you are. Evolution is great, but that does not mean we are any less an animal than an elephant or a gorilla (you know, those animals we are only minutely genetically different from?)

[BoogyMan]

Worse than that we are also chordates. Oh the humanity!! But alas, I am no animal.

Egads AnnE! LOL

[AnnEsthesia]

Yes you are. You are just one that wants to believe there is some magical mystical OTHER thing he is. You are an animal. You eat, need shelter, procreate, shit and piss just like every other animal. Just because you wear Levis and sneakers and drive a car does not change the fact that you are still an animal.

[BoogyMan]

Yes you are. You are just one that wants to believe there is some magical mystical OTHER thing he is. You are an animal. You eat, need shelter, procreate, sh1t and piss just like every other animal. Just because you wear Levis and sneakers and drive a car does not change the fact that you are still an animal.



Source: Link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/animal)

an·i·mal /ˈænəməl/ [an-uh-muhl]
–noun 1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.
2. any such living thing other than a human being.
3. a mammal, as opposed to a fish, bird, etc.
4. the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of human beings; animality: the animal in every person.
5. an inhuman person; brutish or beastlike person: She married an animal.
6. thing: A perfect job? Is there any such animal?
–adjective 7. of, pertaining to, or derived from animals: animal instincts; animal fats.
8. pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature: animal needs.

I am no animal, and dear lady, neither are you. :D

[AnnEsthesia]

*Rolls eyes* Yea, and if you had looked in a dictionary a few years back, neither would a black person have been a human... they would have been an 'animal'. But you are biologically an animal.

1. any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes.

Try that definition on for size. Oh no, of course not! After all, they tacked on 'other than a human being'... so clearly that changes the biological fact![hr]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cu-JCL7cJGM

[PostmodernProphet]

BTW, please show me where I support every and all act of abortion.

good, progress....what types of abortion do you oppose?.......[hr]Chimpanzees can problem solve

if we are no better than animals, why does it take a million monkeys to equal one Shakespeare?.......

you just spent more than a page arguing about whether we are animals.....strangely, that is irrelevant to what you in fact claimed.....your claim was that we are nothing MORE than animals....and in truth, we are more than every other animal......for one thing, apart from the liberals among us, we can reason.....

{maybe you should add that one to your sig......"not smarter than any other animal"}

[BoogyMan]

Just dismiss that dictionary AnnE, lets just toss it out the door, can I reference you when I need the REAL definition since the actual dictionary is useless? :ecstatic:

You have nothing upon which to stand here other than your desire to claim that man is no more than an animal, a point shown to be erroneous.

[nevadamedic]

anybody want to give odds on what her baby's choice would be?.......


We need to get that baby a shit that says I survived Roe Vs. Wade.

[Alonzo]

ah, is that the rationale behind approving abortion?.....what do you do with birthed children or even adults who don't have fully functioning brains then?.......if you are going to claim you have a rational basis for excluding the unborn, don't you think you ought to be able to present a rational basis?.....

I assume you mean the person isn't cognitively aware. If an adult or child doesn't have a fully functional brain, and has no potential for gaining or regaining one, then I'd suggest pulling the plug.[hr]Boogy, there is no scientific argument to suggest we aren't animals. And every ability we possess, be it language, culture, concept of self, empathy, understanding death, tool use and creation, keeping of pets (even in the wild certain primates, especially young ones, have been known to keep insects in that manner for a day or so, without eventually killing or eating them) etc. exists in other species in one form or another. The difference is degrees.[hr]
if we are no better than animals, why does it take a million monkeys to equal one Shakespeare?.......

What a stupid question.

you just spent more than a page arguing about whether we are animals.....strangely, that is irrelevant to what you in fact claimed.....your claim was that we are nothing MORE than animals....and in truth, we are more than every other animal......for one thing, apart from the liberals among us, we can reason.....

{maybe you should add that one to your sig......"not smarter than any other animal"}


Animals can reason. That's why animals, such as crows and primates, can use tools to solve problems. Pigs, primates, elephants, dolphins etc. all have such abilities. Studies with monkeys showed them equalling or beating college students on basic math, chimps have been shown to understand concepts and equivalence groups (things that share almost none or no physical similarities but are similar only in concept, such as banana and cake). Some animals can also learn language and, when they do not know a word for what they want, they combine other words they know to create a new word, that's been seen in certain apes like the famous gorilla koko.

[Pookie]

I don't mind being classified or called an animal. My pets are a hell of a lot smarter than I so I take that as a compliment.
Purrs,
Pookie

[nevadamedic]

and has no rights

we're working on it, we're working on it.......


I'm going to start campaigning for broccoli rights, they're just as smart as most fetuses! Why shouldn't they have rights too?


The sad thing is that Broccoli are actually smarter then most Liberals.

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote:
if we are no better than animals, why does it take a million monkeys to equal one Shakespeare?.......


What a stupid question.

shucks, I thought it was rather witty.....guess I will have to buy another million monkeys and typewriters if I expect to come up with something good enough to impress YOU......

[nevadamedic]

Quote:
if we are no better than animals, why does it take a million monkeys to equal one Shakespeare?.......


What a stupid question.

shucks, I thought it was rather witty.....guess I will have to buy another million monkeys and typewriters if I expect to come up with something good enough to impress YOU......


:lmao:

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, there is no scientific argument to suggest we aren't animals. And every ability we possess, be it language, culture, concept of self, empathy, understanding death, tool use and creation, keeping of pets (even in the wild certain primates, especially young ones, have been known to keep insects in that manner for a day or so, without eventually killing or eating them) etc. exists in other species in one form or another. The difference is degrees.

When I first asked the question I pointed to the fact that no animal can reason like a human, can speak like a human, etc. You can point to the very limited abilities of other species and claim we are just like them all you wish Zo, but it doesn't make it so. Man is certainly no animal.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, then I will start calling you a rock-head, Boogy, since you are not an animal, and clearly you are not a plant.. so you must be a rock.

But then again, I know you are just talking semantics, since that is your forte.

[BoogyMan]

Semantics are important, the study of meaning has great value.

There is much more to being called an animal than simple taxonomy.

[AnnEsthesia]

And anyone can tell you that even though a gorilla and a mouse are very different, they are both still animals. Just because one has more complex abilities does not change the essence of the beast.

[BoogyMan]

You are still focusing solely on taxonomy AnnE. I am not.

[AnnEsthesia]

Boogy, you are just stating that because we can do things that no other animal (as far as you know) can do, then we are not an animal. That is like saying that if a car has equipment that no other car has, then it is not a car but something other than a car. It is absurd.

[BoogyMan]

I think we are probably going to get to agree to disagree on this one AnnE, I think you are dead wrong and you obviously think I am dead wrong. :ponder:

[Alonzo]

When I first asked the question I pointed to the fact that no animal can reason like a human, can speak like a human, etc. You can point to the very limited abilities of other species and claim we are just like them all you wish Zo, but it doesn't make it so. Man is certainly no animal.

So because we have certain abilities that were are better at than other animals, and certain abilities we are worse at than other animals, that means that we "certainly no animal"? So you make such an argument without any scientific evidence, just your opinion?

We can't transform, we cant levitate, we can't warp around the world or anything else that would clearly distinguish us. On every dimension the only difference is degrees.

[PostmodernProphet]

On every dimension the only difference is degrees

yes, 180 of them......

[Scribbler1]

I was always under the impression that humans and chimpanzees are closely related genetically. If so, that kind of puts the humans in the animal category.

[Alonzo]

On every dimension the only difference is degrees

yes, 180 of them......


So no animals use tools, have basic culture, can use language to communicate etc.? No animals can do those things?

[BoogyMan]

On every dimension the only difference is degrees

yes, 180 of them......


So no animals use tools, have basic culture, can use language to communicate etc.? No animals can do those things?


Zo, show me an animal that can choose to become something more than simply the sum of its physical parts and you might have a leg to stand on, otherwise the argument you are making falls apart pretty quickly.

[4Reaganomics]

Animals don't use language. They have call systems. Call systems are a set of responses that are catered to situations. Animals cannot form language. Human beings remain the only beings capable of creating language and forming complete thoughts in sentence form.

The chimp was able to communicate with ASL when it was taught, but it was never able to create language, and it was never able to come close to the complexities of human spoken language.

[Alonzo]

I'm not sure what you mean by "more than simply the sum of its physical parts". In a sense everything is more than just an arm, leg etc, but everything is the result of its physical parts functioning together at the same time.[hr]
Animals don't use language. They have call systems. Call systems are a set of responses that are catered to situations. Animals cannot form language. Human beings remain the only beings capable of creating language and forming complete thoughts in sentence form.

Dolphins and other whales use communication systems that differ by groups and region, which indicates something more than what is innate is occurring. Many birds also use songs that change over time, and the way they communicate changes over time.

If they're just innate call systems then region and group wouldn't play a role, and they wouldn't be changing over an animals life.

The chimp was able to communicate with ASL when it was taught, but it was never able to create language, and it was never able to come close to the complexities of human spoken language.


Chimps do poorly learning ASL, gorilla's do much better but chimps, I believe, are slightly more intelligent. I think Orangutans and bonobo's have had moderate success.

Gorillas, such as Koko, do combine 2 or more words to describe things they currently do not have words for, so in a way they are doing a key aspect of "creating" language by creating words.

They also do teach, or try to teach (the age of the other greatly affects the success of this) other apes the language they know as well.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Wow, we developed larger brains through our evolution, and that somehow makes us better than just animals! I mean, being almost exactly the same biologically as every other mammal on the planet doesn't mean anything, stomachs, hearts, livers, kidneys, they're all trumped by having an EQ of 5.07 instead of .26 (armadillo)-4.45(some dolphins).

That poor mentally retarded kid down the street probably doesn't count, he can't speak or even feed himself, I guess he'd HAVE to be an animal...

[PostmodernProphet]

If they're just innate call systems then region and group wouldn't play a role, and they wouldn't be changing over an animals life.

of course they would....only other animals in the same group or region would recognize their calls........logically, there would be drift within a group or region isolated from others.......that is the same underlying principle that fuels evolution......[hr]Wow, we developed larger brains through our evolution, and that somehow makes us better than just animals!

even if you only believe in evolution, the answer is obviously yes, developing a larger brain DOES make you better than just animals......[hr]That poor mentally retarded kid down the street probably doesn't count, he can't speak or even feed himself, I guess he'd HAVE to be an animal...

no, he would continue to be what he is "that poor mentally retarded kid down the street".....aka a mentally handicapped "HUMAN BEING"......and even he would likely do a better job at identifying your argument as bogus than an aardvark would........

[moses2792796]

Disgusting, really.

[Alonzo]

no, he would continue to be what he is "that poor mentally retarded kid down the street".....aka a mentally handicapped "HUMAN BEING"......and even he would likely do a better job at identifying your argument as bogus than an aardvark would........

You do realize that a lot of "normal" kids in preschool and kindergarten don't hold an intelligence edge over a chimp, right?

I also wouldn't want to place my bets on a 1 or 2 year old kid if it were in an intelligence test against a Poodle.

of course they would....only other animals in the same group or region would recognize their calls........logically, there would be drift within a group or region isolated from others.......that is the same underlying principle that fuels evolution......

No, because often groups aren't stable, and this is a phenomena seen more often (though not always) in species with some intelligence. And evolution doesn't include change over the course of ones life. No primates lost their tail, genetically anyway, while living. It was done, over time, through reproduction.

Changing of communication, and the passing down of that communication within a group, is more evidence of basic culture. Culture, in terms of communication, tool use, gestures and other behaviors has been confirmed in some primates.

[PostmodernProphet]

You do realize that a lot of "normal" kids in preschool and kindergarten don't hold an intelligence edge over a chimp, right?

doesn't matter....they are still "more than an animal"......[hr]Culture, in terms of communication, tool use, gestures and other behaviors has been confirmed in some primates.

as soon as some gorillas build a Tower of Babel, I will accept your argument......

[Alonzo]

doesn't matter....they are still "more than an animal"......

And why?

Someone should tell all those ancient tribes that they're not human, bet they'll be surprised.

[PostmodernProphet]

Someone should tell all those ancient tribes that they're not human, bet they'll be surprised.

?????......as would I.....can't imagine where you pulled that idea from but it certainly wasn't from MY comments......

And why?

because every example of what you deem "culture" among apes is merely a shadow of what a human is capable of........

[BoogyMan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "more than simply the sum of its physical parts". In a sense everything is more than just an arm, leg etc, but everything is the result of its physical parts functioning together at the same time.

Point me to the animal who, without outside interference, decided to become something for which study, investment, and sacrifice is required for success Zo. I don't see animals around me getting degrees and becoming something other than what they basically began as.

[Scribbler1]

as soon as some gorillas build a Tower of Babel, I will accept your argument......And as soon as you provide evidence there WAS a Tower of babel, I'll accept yours.

[PostmodernProphet]

as soon as some gorillas build a Tower of Babel, I will accept your argument......And as soon as you provide evidence there WAS a Tower of babel, I'll accept yours.


lol Scribbler....you don't believe in the Tower of Babel, then substitute the pyramids....or cuneiform writing......or Polynesian ocean going rafts.....take your pick........

[AnnEsthesia]

Still does not change the biology. We are still animals.

[Elrathin]

Not all animals are man, but man CAN be an animals.

I don't consider someone that rapes another human being anything other than an animal.

[Scribbler1]

as soon as some gorillas build a Tower of Babel, I will accept your argument......And as soon as you provide evidence there WAS a Tower of babel, I'll accept yours.


lol Scribbler....you don't believe in the Tower of Babel, then substitute the pyramids....or cuneiform writing......or Polynesian ocean going rafts.....take your pick........
I was merely pointing out your "challenge" was a little weak, as regards facts. And from what I read, the TofB was a LOT bigger than the pyramids, etc.

Anyhoo, the fact that our brains are more developed than other animals doesn't change the fact that we are still members of the animal kingdom. At the top, I might say (with reservation), but still in that group. We share too many similarities with other land animals. Two eyes, four limbs, lungs, bloodstream, brains (regardless of relative advancement), method of reproduction, two sexes, types of food (meat and veg), instincts (fight or flight, etc.) and affinity for reality TV. (okay, I made that last one up).

We just have too much in common, other than the fact that we prove our superiority every day by polluting our environment, killing each other over trivial issues, massive waste of resources, and of course, politics.

[Alonzo]

?????......as would I.....can't imagine where you pulled that idea from but it certainly wasn't from MY comments......

You're basing humanity on architectural accomplishments with your babylon example.

because every example of what you deem "culture" among apes is merely a shadow of what a human is capable of........

But it's in the same vein, just of lesser intellectual capacity. Human with the mental capacity of a 5 year old could form a culture if left on their own, but it wouldn't begin to approach what normal humans can do, yet it would still be human culture.

Your arguing that humans are apart from animals solely because we possess more of something than other animals do, and that doesn't make much sense from a non-religious view.

Point me to the animal who, without outside interference, decided to become something for which study, investment, and sacrifice is required for success Zo. I don't see animals around me getting degrees and becoming something other than what they basically began as.

Would a human child do that? They're still human, but young children don't possess anymore intellectual capacity, and possess less at some ages, than other animals.

Eventually human children get there through continued intellectual development, and because other animals intellectual development does not continue to the point of humans that doesn't mean there's a fundamental difference, it means that the peak intellectual ability is lower.

[PostmodernProphet]

Anyhoo, the fact that our brains are more developed than other animals doesn't change the fact that we are still members of the animal kingdom

the fact you think that's relevant to the discussion may support your claim, but you are certainly in the minority which supports mine.....

the issue isn't whether humans are listed among the animals.....the claim was we are nothing more......

just of lesser intellectual capacity

Bing.......go!......that's the whole point of the argument, son.......

[BoogyMan]

Point me to the animal who, without outside interference, decided to become something for which study, investment, and sacrifice is required for success Zo. I don't see animals around me getting degrees and becoming something other than what they basically began as.

Would a human child do that? They're still human, but young children don't possess anymore intellectual capacity, and possess less at some ages, than other animals.

Eventually human children get there through continued intellectual development, and because other animals intellectual development does not continue to the point of humans that doesn't mean there's a fundamental difference, it means that the peak intellectual ability is lower.


Human children do this on their own every day in the world Zo, and they do it despite a horrible set of parents. On the other hand, animals NEVER do this, no matter what their circumstances.

The comparison just doesn't stand Zo.

[Alonzo]

the fact you think that's relevant to the discussion may support your claim, but you are certainly in the minority which supports mine.....

the issue isn't whether humans are listed among the animals.....the claim was we are nothing more......


Popularity doesn't make you right.

Bing.......go!......that's the whole point of the argument, son.......

Uhh, ya it is. They're of lesser intellectual capacity, just as a 1 year old, 2 year old, 3 year old and so on. But the normal adult chimp is the equivalent of a 4-6 year old human child in terms of intelligence.

Human children do this on their own every day in the world Zo, and they do it despite a horrible set of parents. On the other hand, animals NEVER do this, no matter what their circumstances.

4 year olds study? I'm not talking about looking at pictures in magazines (which chimps have been known to enjoy), or simply looking and doing things that interest them.

I have loved dinosaurs since I was a little kid and I used to look at interesting dinosaur pictures and toys, but that's difference from actually studying it.

Also, considering the fact that human children are raised in human culture, ther're not in a vacuum, they've seen many different human behaviors such as reading, studying, working etc. that animals simply are not exposed to.

The few historical examples of feral children, those raised outside human society, weren't interested in the things you mentioned, or at least not until they were heavily worked with to get them interested in those things.

[PostmodernProphet]

Popularity doesn't make you right.

lol, around here I'm the LEAST popular when I'm right......[hr]But the normal adult chimp is the equivalent of a 4-6 year old human child in terms of intelligence.

probably something less than that, but it proves my point....if at their best they equal our least, then how can anyone logically argue that we are nothing more than they......

for that matter, for the very reason chimps can't logically argue how could anyone logically argue we are nothing more than they......[hr]The few historical examples of feral children, those raised outside human society, weren't interested in the things you mentioned, or at least not until they were heavily worked with to get them interested in those things.

precisely....children are capable of learning those things....animals are not.....

[Scribbler1]

precisely....children are capable of learning those things....animals are not.....That's irrelevant. Humans learn things important to humans. You are saying animals have no skills or intellect, while the truth is they have no HUMAN skills or intellect. Mainly because they don't NEED them.

You could be dropped, naked and unarmed, with no food or shelter, in the middle of a national forest somewhere to live in THEIR world for a while. I think you would think differently of their skills. In fact, you'd be downright jealous of the other animals.

[BoogyMan]

4 year olds study? I'm not talking about looking at pictures in magazines (which chimps have been known to enjoy), or simply looking and doing things that interest them.

I have loved dinosaurs since I was a little kid and I used to look at interesting dinosaur pictures and toys, but that's difference from actually studying it.

Also, considering the fact that human children are raised in human culture, ther're not in a vacuum, they've seen many different human behaviors such as reading, studying, working etc. that animals simply are not exposed to.

The few historical examples of feral children, those raised outside human society, weren't interested in the things you mentioned, or at least not until they were heavily worked with to get them interested in those things.


Are you actually going to ignore the fact that man is the ONLY living thing on this planet that can by his own efforts become practically anything his mind can stand the influx of information to become?

Not a single animal has ever become significantly more than the sum of it's physical parts Zo.

[AnnEsthesia]

Nor have humans. What have humans become that they could not be otherwise? Have we become birds? Have we become mice? No matter what we put our higher intellect to, we are still humans and are still animals. Top of the heap animals, but animals none-the-less.

[PostmodernProphet]

while the truth is they have no HUMAN skills or intellect

well thank you.....that was exactly the point we've been trying to make.....

No matter what we put our higher intellect to, we are still humans and are still animals.

yes, and they are not....that is why we are more than just animals......

[Scribbler1]

while the truth is they have no HUMAN skills or intellect

well thank you.....that was exactly the point we've been trying to make.....No, it wasn't. Other animals don't have human intellect because they are NOT human, but we are STILL animals.
Squirrels don't have tiger intellect. Deer don't have dog intellect and so on. And some humans don't have too much intellect at ALL. But maybe you'd like to argue that Mensa members are a different species than the idiot down the street, for example.No matter what we put our higher intellect to, we are still humans and are still animals.yes, and they are not....that is why we are more than just animals......Yes?? Read that quote again, please. We are human AND we are animals.

[AnnEsthesia]

A dog is always a dog, but that does not change the fact that it is an animal. Same with humans.

[PostmodernProphet]

No, it wasn't.

????....excuse me, but I think I ought to be the acknowledged expert on "the point I am trying to make"........

A dog is always a dog, but that does not change the fact that it is an animal. Same with humans.

looks like both of you need a reminder of what we are discussing.....the issue has never been whether people are animals.....the claim made in post #37, page 4, which started this whole mess was

Ann: We are animals, nothing more.
to which Boogie replied: Humans are not just animals.
and Ann said: Yes we are.


nobody has ever denied that humans are animals....the issue is the "more"......

[Scribbler1]

No, it wasn't.

????....excuse me, but I think I ought to be the acknowledged expert on "the point I am trying to make"........Then you presented it poorly. You are saying we are MORE than animals and I say we are not. Other than biology, you point to creativity and intellect that makes us superior to other animals. We are, in reality, DIFFERENT, not "more" than other animals, as I tried to explain earlier.
Animals are as smart as they need to be and you are judging them by your own human standards. When you do that you are guaranteed to find them inferior. But, since you really don't know how smart they are (without using human standards) you offer only conjecture, which I disagree with.
And, as a side observation, I have noticed human intellect has gotten us into a lot of trouble many times.

[PostmodernProphet]

Then you presented it poorly. You are saying we are MORE than animals and I say we are not.

strange....you managed to contradict yourself within the space of two posts....

Other animals don't have human intellect because they are NOT human

[Alonzo]

Are you actually going to ignore the fact that man is the ONLY living thing on this planet that can by his own efforts become practically anything his mind can stand the influx of information to become?

Which he could not do if he did not excel in certain forms of intelligence. Man has a higher degree of certian forms of intelligence, but does not possess any form of intelligence unique to itself.

Not a single animal has ever become significantly more than the sum of it's physical parts Zo.

Every animal is more than the sum of its physical parts. And arm, leg, body etc. do nothing alone.

The chimp that uses a stick to reach down into a termite mound is using something it has learned, the baboon that throws pointed sticks at enemies, and the crows in japan that use traffic lights and cars to crack nuts, all examples of animals going beyond their own body and using their mind to create tools and use the environment to their advantage.

That is what humans do, we just do a more advanced form of it.

You're taking something that many animals possess and, because we possess more of it, are using that to say that we are apart from all the other animals. But, in fact, a certain part of our biology just functions better than the other animal species.

[PostmodernProphet]

The chimp that uses a stick to reach down into a termite mound is using something it has learned, the baboon that throws pointed sticks at enemies, and the crows in japan that use traffic lights and cars to crack nuts, all examples of animals going beyond their own body and using their mind to create tools and use the environment to their advantage.

and how much of that is anthropomorphism?......the ape picks up a stick and the observer shouts "Tool use!".......he sticks the end of it up his nose and the observer lauds, "The cotton swab has been reinvented!"........the ape pops the results, stick and all into his mouth and the observer hails, "Emeril!"...

..ba-am........

[Scribbler1]

Then you presented it poorly. You are saying we are MORE than animals and I say we are not.

strange....you managed to contradict yourself within the space of two posts....

Other animals don't have human intellect because they are NOT human
Different does not equal "more". Human intellect works for humans. You can't apply the same yardstick when comparing ANYTHING else.

[PostmodernProphet]

so if we are not "equal", and we are not "more"....that leaves us with..........

chalk it up to species arrogance if you wish, but I consider human intellect as decidedly "more".......

[Alonzo]

The chimp that uses a stick to reach down into a termite mound is using something it has learned, the baboon that throws pointed sticks at enemies, and the crows in japan that use traffic lights and cars to crack nuts, all examples of animals going beyond their own body and using their mind to create tools and use the environment to their advantage.

and how much of that is anthropomorphism?......the ape picks up a stick and the observer shouts "Tool use!".......he sticks the end of it up his nose and the observer lauds, "The cotton swab has been reinvented!"........the ape pops the results, stick and all into his mouth and the observer hails, "Emeril!"...

..ba-am........



Wow, that post is filled with ignorance of what animals are capable of. Tool use is well document, crows have been shown to be able to use tools to reach things, elephants often cover their dead with leaves and other debris and have been known to, after covering them, stand around them for hours after death. Chimps, without any doubt from any researcher, have been proven to use stone tools to crack nuts and reach into termite mounds.

Some chimp tool use is known to be cultural as well, as only chimps in certain parts of Africa use certain tools, or chimps in different regions use tools in different ways.

Anyone who has tried to replace a punctured tire or fix a leaky faucet knows the importance of having the right tool for the job. Chimpanzees, it turns out, are also very particular about their tool choice, especially when it comes to digging into termite mounds to get a tasty snack.

Using infrared, motion-triggered video cameras, researchers have documented how chimpanzees in the Goualougo Triangle—a region within the Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park in the Republic of Congo—use a variety of tools to extract termites from their nests. The "tool kits" are among the most complex ever observed in wild chimp populations.

Tool use among chimpanzees is well documented. For example, chimps in the Taï rain forest, in West Africa's Côte d'Ivoire, use stone "hammers" to crack open nuts. In Tanzania's Gombe National Park, chimps use straw and blades of grass to hunt for termites, as made famous in Jane Goodall's classic documentaries.

The new study, published in the current issue of the biology journal The American Naturalist, adds another detail to this picture.

For the last two decades scientists in the Congo River Basin have been collecting sticks—tools discarded after termite fishing—around termite mounds. But few have witnessed the chimps in action.

The new video cameras revealed chimps using one short stick to penetrate the aboveground mounds and then a "fishing probe" to extract the termites.

For subterranean nests the chimps use their feet to force a larger "puncturing stick" into the earth, drilling holes into termite chambers, and then a separate fishing probe to harvest the insects. Often the chimps modified the fishing probe, pulling it through their teeth to fray the end like a paintbrush. The frayed edge was better for collecting the insects.

"It's exciting to watch these chimps do something that we've seen only people do before—use their feet to push the stick into the ground as a farmer might do with a shovel," said Pat Wright, a primatologist with the New York State's Stony Brook University.

The chimps use one particular tree species—Thomandersia hensii—to fashion their puncturing sticks and an herb—Sarcophrynium spp.—for their fishing probes.

The preference for these trees suggests that chimps not only know which raw materials are best suited for each task but also travel to seek them. The chimps arrive at the termite nests with the appropriate tools in hand, said co-author Dave Morgan, a conservationist with Cambridge University in the U.K. and the Bronx-based Wildlife Conservation Society in New York.

Termite fishing is much tougher than one might think, said co-author Crickette Sanz, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Sanz and Morgan both tried fishing for the insects.

After cracking through the sunbaked mounds or subterranean chambers with twigs or sticks, fashioning a good fishing probe is a challenge. The chimps even use special techniques for pulling the aggressive soldier termites off the end of the probe. "We were less successful than most of the [chimp] youngsters—this is a complex skill that is developed with years of practice," Sanz said.

The video showed infants watching closely as mother chimps skillfully extract sticks swarming with large, shiny black termites. Through these social interactions, tool-using behaviors and techniques are passed from one individual to the next—what many scientists believe to be the hallmark of culture.

The research was funded in large part by the National Geographic Society's Expeditions Council and the Wildlife Conservation Society.

New Technology Better for Chimps

Both the findings and the methods used to conduct the research are novel, said Agustin Fuentes, an anthropologist and primatologist at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, who reviewed the research. "This is the first time we have seen chimps using multiple tools for a single task," he said.

The other noteworthy feature is the technology—motion-triggered cameras—Sanz and Morgan used to spy on the chimps at six termite mounds.

"The videos are very impressive—121 examples of chimps using more than one tool at termite mounds. These chimps are in one of the most remote rain forests in the world. No one has ever viewed them so closely—the results are very exciting and very new," Wright said.

At other study sites in Africa, like Jane Goodall's famed Gombe site, the chimps are habituated to humans. "At Gombe, there are at least one or two people who follow the chimps around their entire lives. So that's got to have some sort of impact," Fuentes said. "Sanz and Morgan used video analysis to minimize the impact on the chimps and bypass the habituation."

But as the cameras were watching the chimps, the chimps were also inspecting the cameras. Many of the apes stopped in their tracks when they first saw the camera units—but the responses were very different between individuals. Some immediately retreated. Others walked right up to the camera and peered into the lens.

Close Encounters With a Camera

One infant gained a little more courage with each visit to the nest. The first time he saw the camera, he approached and looked into the lens. The second time, he sat in front of the camera and tried to press his finger through the glass. On his third visit, he tried to insert a puncturing tool into the lens.

"We were very humored and a bit worried during his last visit, when he brought another infant to inspect the camera," Sanz said.

The cameras were the brainchild of electrical engineer Steve Gulick, director of Wildland Security, a Brooklyn-based organization that develops antipoaching technology. Gulick often lends his talents to conservation projects.

When Gulick heard what Sanz and Morgan wanted to study, he rigged up a single camera near a termite mound. The camera worked well, and five additional cameras were fixed within a 100-square-kilometer (40-square-mile) radius.

The study reinforces the notion that tool use began long before humans walked the planet. Humans, chimps, and orangutans all used wood and bone tools, suggesting that tool use originated with a common ancestor more than 12 million years ago, Fuentes said.

The researchers are expanding their camera array to more chimp communities to observe differences in tool use.

There is tremendous pressure to document these chimpanzee cultures quickly. The animals are endangered by a burgeoning trade in their meat and outbreaks of viruses such as Ebola. The forests in which they reside are threatened by logging interests.

"Humans are extraordinary tool users. Examining these behaviors in our closest living relatives provides insights into the material culture and social traditions of our species," Sanz said. "As these forests vanish so do our opportunities to document the unique cultures that reside within them. We are quickly losing these apes that we hardly know."



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_chimps_2.html[hr]so if we are not "equal", and we are not "more"....that leaves us with..........

chalk it up to species arrogance if you wish, but I consider human intellect as decidedly "more".......

So is an elephant, when compared to trout, "more than an animal" They're much more intelligent.

[PostmodernProphet]

Wow, that post is filled with ignorance of what animals are capable of.

lol, well you give me a call when they invent a telephone.....

So is an elephant, when compared to trout, "more than an animal" They're much more intelligent.

so on a scale of one to ten, with a human ranking ten and a worm ranking 0, how does an elephant rank up against a trout.....a 2.7 instead of a a 1.8?

[Osborn F. Enready]

prophet said:
lol, well you give me a call when they invent a telephone.....

You do the same when a fetus does this, and then I will respect their rights. :grrrr:

[PostmodernProphet]

you tell me the rational basis for denying them their rights and I take a look at it.....who knows how many inventions we have missed out on because a child was killed before it was born.....simply because you want to deny them their rights.....

[piratemonkey]

so if we are not "equal", and we are not "more"....that leaves us with..........

chalk it up to species arrogance if you wish, but I consider human intellect as decidedly "more".......


Science, that annoying field of inquiry that give us facts, shows us that animals are actually smarter than us in some specific ways.



For example, chimps on their own would not sit at a computer responding with rapid touches on the screen as a test of their immediate memory. Videos of their doing just that at Kyoto University in Japan especially impressed the symposium scientists.

Tetsuro Matsuzawa, a Kyoto primatologist, described a young chimp watching as numbers 1 through 9 flashed on the computer screen at random positions. Then the numbers disappeared in no more than a second. White squares remained where the numbers had been. The chimp casually but swiftly pressed the squares, calling back the numbers in ascending order — 1, 2, 3, etc

The test was repeated several times, with the numbers and squares in different places. The chimp, which had months of training accompanied by promised food rewards, almost never failed to remember where the numbers had been. The video included scenes of a human failing the test, seldom recalling more than one or two numbers, if any.

“Humans can’t do it,” Dr. Matsuzawa said. “Chimpanzees are superior to humans in this task.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/science/17chimp.html?ref=science[hr]
you tell me the rational basis for denying them their rights and I take a look at it.....who knows how many inventions we have missed out on because a child was killed before it was born.....simply because you want to deny them their rights.....


The burden of proof is on you. Your allegation not at all intuitively obvious.

Show us factually that a ball of undifferentiated cells is a person who deserves all of the rights and responsibilities that you or I have.

Give us facts.

[PostmodernProphet]

Show us factually that a ball of undifferentiated cells is a person who deserves all of the rights and responsibilities that you or I have.

can't....on the other hand I can provide a basis for showing that a human fetus deserves such rights......scientifically speaking, the only event that occurs between conception and death that signifies a change that warrants consideration as the event distinguishing a human being as an individual seperate from all others would be the moment at which its' unique DNA is established.....from that point forward that human being can be distinguished from every other human being as a living human individual......now THAT is a rational basis on which to identify person-hood......[hr]shows us that animals are actually smarter than us in some specific ways

certainly less prone to distraction, perhaps.....more attuned to the food reward than the human child.....it may well be that better performance at mindless tasks demonstrates something other than "smarter"........

[Osborn F. Enready]

prophet said:
can't....on the other hand I can provide a basis for showing that a human fetus deserves such rights......scientifically speaking,

Since when has science been the sole decider?

prophet said:
the only event that occurs between conception and death that signifies a change that warrants consideration as the event distinguishing a human being as an individual seperate from all others would be the moment at which its' unique DNA is established.....

Never mind the obvious, which is the (1)PHYSICAL seperation of parasitic fetus, from the host mother with the umbilical chord and the (2)changeover from breathing liquid to breathing open air. Never mind the seperation from living within a living, rights holding being, to being a (3)seperate and (4)equal legal entity, (5)citizenship, (6)etc.

Yes..... clearly....no difference.... :dizzy:

prophet said:
from that point forward that human being can be distinguished from every other human being as a living human individual......now THAT is a rational basis on which to identify person-hood......

It is one small part of a rational basis, while ignoring all other rational parts.... which makes it rather irrational.

[Scribbler1]

so if we are not "equal", and we are not "more"....that leaves us with..........

chalk it up to species arrogance if you wish, but I consider human intellect as decidedly "more".......
You of course have the right to that opinion, but I disagree. I'm still going with different as you haven't said anything to change that viewpoint.
And I'm not even considering the fact that you don't find too many other animals that rape, pollute, subjugate other animals, make war over artificially created boundaries, are obsessed with politics or fashion, engage in suicide bombings, commit terrorist acts in the name of religion and a lot of other wonderful human traits we humans seem to have cornered the market on.

But, now that I think of it, we DO have a lot in common with one animal. Sheep.[hr]lol, well you give me a call when they invent a telephone.....How about when the have a NEED for a telephone.
Whales can communicate over hundreds of miles of open sea, and they don't pay toll charges either.

[PostmodernProphet]

Since when has science been the sole decider?

well, when stacked up against your gut feeling, it ranks pretty high......[hr]Never mind the obvious, which is the (1)PHYSICAL seperation of parasitic fetus, from the host mother with the umbilical chord and the (2)changeover from breathing liquid to breathing open air. Never mind the seperation from living within a living, rights holding being, to being a (3)seperate and (4)equal legal entity, (5)citizenship, (6)etc.

that which is arbitrary cannot be rational.....the umbilical cord can be cut at anytime within a period of several months.....the same scalpel that is used to cut the channel for the tube that sucks the brain out of a late term abortion victim could have just as easily severed the umbilical cord......thus, the act of "seperation" is arbitrary.......

[hr]while ignoring all other rational parts

I have been asking you to name some all week.....so far, nothing.....

[BoogyMan]

Are you actually going to ignore the fact that man is the ONLY living thing on this planet that can by his own efforts become practically anything his mind can stand the influx of information to become?

Which he could not do if he did not excel in certain forms of intelligence. Man has a higher degree of certian forms of intelligence, but does not possess any form of intelligence unique to itself.

Zo, when an animal can, from its own self awareness, choose to become something other than an instinctually driven creature and school itself to become a Dr. or a Lawyer or an Engineer you might have a point.


Not a single animal has ever become significantly more than the sum of it's physical parts Zo.

Every animal is more than the sum of its physical parts. And arm, leg, body etc. do nothing alone.

You focus on the individual bits here Zo yet I am asking you to show me where an animal has become more than simply the sum of its physical parts. You have yet to show me where that is the case.

[AnnEsthesia]

I was not aware that by "becoming" a Doctor, the human was something other than human. Can you show me how a person changes when they become a doctor? Thanks!

[BoogyMan]

I was not aware that by "becoming" a Doctor, the human was something other than human. Can you show me how a person changes when they become a doctor? Thanks!


I never said it was AnnE, that was an assumption on your part.

[AnnEsthesia]

Well, perhaps you view a Dr as being somehow more. I don't. A doctor is still a human and a human is still an animal.

[piratemonkey]

You focus on the individual bits here Zo yet I am asking you to show me where an animal has become more than simply the sum of its physical parts. You have yet to show me where that is the case.



Your prompt is predicated on the idea that a human is "more than the sum of its physical parts." That idea is anything but obvious to me.

Why do you think that? What proof do you have? It's an interesting, if slightly bizarre, concept.

[Scribbler1]

Well, for one species, at least, Dolphins DO care for their own. LINK (http://animal.discovery.com/features/dolphins/facts/facts.html) Bonds form between individual dolphins that may last a lifetime. They've been observed physically supporting sick or dying pod members.
That should count for something in this discussion.

I'm sure I could find more (other than all the "new age" sites I read) but I haven't the time.

[Alonzo]

You focus on the individual bits here Zo yet I am asking you to show me where an animal has become more than simply the sum of its physical parts. You have yet to show me where that is the case.

Because it doesn't make sense to me, and I keep saying that. Animals, all but the simplest, do more than their bodies, by their very nature, allow through the cognitive capacities they possess. What you see as "more than the sum of its physical parts" is the part that makes no sense since the brain, and everything in it, is physical. It is the sum of physical parts, neurons, muscle cells etc. that enables typing, building computers, reading etc. At the same time if you mean large physical parts, it is the cognitive capacity of animals that enable creating and/or using tools, hunting, hiding food, remembering routes etc., all of which are more than just the sum of the obvious physical parts.

[Jade Rat]

Interesting, this is the first time i ever saw a "pro-choice" person call the baby a 'baby'. I find this incredibly irresponsible of that mother, does she really think the kid will not resent her for the rest of her days for suggesting the child would willingly submit to being torn limb from limb in a abortion 'clinic'?

[AnnEsthesia]

My mother was pro-choice. So am I. Would I have resented that? No. You do realize that the majority of pro-choice people never have an abortion, right?

[Jade Rat]

I find it difficult to imagine ones own mother- not recognizing their child's right to live until it can breath on its own. All i see is that 1.5 million abortions(ball park number) happen in the United States alone- each year. I find it a horrible thought to imagine anyone having- or even supporting abortions in any case save for when the Mothers life is in danger.

[4Reaganomics]

Some people support whatever is convenient to clean up their mistake Jade, even when it is ripping the life out of an innocent child in its developmental stages.

[Jade Rat]

The problem stems from a large portion of them, just simply not accepting that it is Human life. They constantly referee to it as "Fetus" witch is strange, because that word means "young one","little one" and "little person" in Latin.

The majority of them claim it is "The Womans body" Yet it holds its own unique DNA that is not identical to the mother's.

I just do not get how Humans can be so heartless as to deny a unborn baby it's life- for all we know we killed the Man or Woman who would have cured Cancer!

[Osborn F. Enready]

Jade Rat said:
I find it difficult to imagine ones own mother- not recognizing their child's right to live until it can breath on its own.

Happens all the time, when the mother uses LOGIC AND REASON to determine her ability to raise that child, how it may affect HER OWN health and welfare, and makes a choice that properly puts HER priority above that of a POTENTIAL person who has no rights except by the extension of her will to recognize them until birth.

Jade Rat said:
All i see is that 1.5 million abortions(ball park number) happen in the United States alone- each year.

When thats all you see, isn't hard to analyze the situation.
Sounds like tunnel vision, or navel gazing, not sure which.

Jade Rat said:
I find it a horrible thought to imagine anyone having- or even supporting abortions in any case save for when the Mothers life is in danger.

Good thing you don't own any body but your own, and can live with your own choices.

Jade Rat said:
The problem stems from a large portion of them, just simply not accepting that it is Human life.

Wrong. There is a difference between a "person" and a "human" when it comes to legal interpretation. I think the real problem is that many who are "usually" religious fail to see where individual rights eminate from.

You only have one natural right, and that is the right to your own life. All other rights are logical extrapolations from that base right, because without them you wouldn't be able to physically observe and exercise the base natural right to life.

Jade Rat said:
They constantly referee to it as "Fetus" witch is strange, because that word means "young one","little one" and "little person" in Latin.

Its not strange at all. Do you call your born child a fetus??

The reason the word is used, is to seperate the obvious physical reality in words.

A fetus is a dependent life form, a parasitic life form that lives in a host, at the will of the host. A child is an individual, not living within another living, rights holding person. They are in no way the same physically, nor should they be described in the same way if intellectual honesty is to be maintained.

Jade Rat said:
The majority of them claim it is "The Womans body" Yet it holds its own unique DNA that is not identical to the mother's.

Do you deny that a fetus resides in a womans body?
Do you deny that if that "umbillical cord" were severed, the fetus would die unless delivered and put on life support?
Do you deny there is a physical connection between mother and fetus?
Do you deny that a fetus can't exist outside the womb without special care to its special needs?

Please explain.

Jade Rat said:
I just do not get how Humans can be so heartless as to deny a unborn baby it's life-

A fetus has no right to life, nor any means to claim or interpret rights, nor could it exercise rights, without the EXPRESS WILL AND SUPPORTING ACTIONS OF THE MOTHER. Obviously then, it is the mothers choice that matters.

It has nothing to do with "heartless", it has everything to do with logic and reason and demanding a lack of contradiction in our system of law.

Jade Rat said:
for all we know we killed the Man or Woman who would have cured Cancer!

Point?!?

[Osborn F. Enready]

4Reganomics said:
Some people support whatever is convenient to clean up their mistake Jade, even when it is ripping the life out of an innocent child in its developmental stages.

LOL....really..

Many angles to tackle this....

If the mother aborts, it is a choice based on her own needs, as is her right to her own body.

Innocent?!? I think every Christian or Catholic here would disagree, if they are not hypocrites, but many are.

Thank you for noting the obvious fact..... DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES, which recognizes correctly, it is a POTENTIAL person, not yet a person, nor capable of understanding, accepting, exercising or containing the rights of an ACTUAL person.

[PostmodernProphet]

Thank you for noting the obvious fact..... DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES, which recognizes correctly, it is a POTENTIAL person, not yet a person, nor capable of understanding, accepting, exercising or containing the rights of an ACTUAL person.


you still owe us an explanation of WHY you deny the fetus the rights of a person.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

Prophet said:
you still owe us an explanation of WHY you deny the fetus the rights of a person.....

WHY. Because they aren't able to exercise, have conception of, perceive or physically claim their rights, as they are not INDIVIDUALS, PERSONS, BORN, LEGAL ENTITIES.

Again, I ask you.... where do YOU think rights eminate from?

[Jade Rat]

Happens all the time, when the mother uses LOGIC AND REASON to determine her ability to raise that child, how it may affect HER OWN health and welfare, and makes a choice that properly puts HER priority above that of a POTENTIAL person who has no rights except by the extension of her will to recognize them until birth.


Logic such as deciding she should have sex before she is able to handle the consequences of her actions? Killing the problem is a convenient way to avoid responsibility for ones own actions.

This quot is from Leslie's Armstrong's 14 year research project on infertility.

"Therefore, it can become very confusing to find medical reports indicating that out of every 100 couples, 10 cannot have children, and 15 have fewer than they wish."

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20070315/857ph.html

http://www.growthtrac.com/artman/publish/the-dream-to-conceive-101.php

When you add that into the 2000 Census statistics


out of the population that is married 54,000,000 (rounding) are married.

If 10 percent of that number (witch is) 18,000,000 (rounding) would either want more , or have no children.

Wouldn't adoption be a much better 'choice' to a abortion?

The reason why we see so many unadopted children in America- is not because no one wants them, quite the contrary it is due to governmental interference when dealing with American children.

This can take up to a year of back and forths in order to get all the paperwork done, background checks- when they can easily go to China and get a child in a mater of weeks.


But lets get into the 'meat' of what you said, you seem to Deny that it is a Human life- from whence i got "potentual person" I put forward this, at what point would you cede the notion that it is a Human?

I believe it starts at conception, due to it having Human DNA- here is something i found interesting;

"The fact that the zygote is the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes"


Is this not clear evidence that the life inside the womb first began immediately at conception?

The argument you give, leads me to believe you intend to allow parents expecting to terminate a unborn, in the hopes it will not burden the mother, is this interpretation correct?

In America, we prize our selfs for taking responsibility for our actions- we must live with, and learn from mistakes we make in our lifetimes- that is how Americans better them selfs and adapt to become better. When you take away individual responsibility for the actions made out of freewill- you destroy not only the experience but set a example for others saying you can get out of your bad choices by doing X,Y, and Z.

Now, no one is going to force the mother to marry the man who she had relations with, or force her to keep the child- adoption agencies are more than willing to take the child- so perhaps both sides win in this case yes? The child is not killed, and the 'Mother' (I use quotes because Mother to me is really a earned title in many respects) is not subject to her 'mistake'.




Jade Rat said:
All i see is that 1.5 million abortions(ball park number) happen in the United States alone- each year.

When thats all you see, isn't hard to analyze the situation.
Sounds like tunnel vision, or navel gazing, not sure which.

I did not mean that literally, surely you must have known that?

Jade Rat said:
I find it a horrible thought to imagine anyone having- or even supporting abortions in any case save for when the Mothers life is in danger.

Good thing you don't own any body but your own, and can live with your own choices.

Is this sarcasm? Surely you wouldn't use this argument with you are jugging a mass murder (No paroell) If you see, say Charals Manson killing people- do you not form a opinion of right and wrong? Do you not feel for the victims?

Jade Rat said:
The problem stems from a large portion of them, just simply not accepting that it is Human life.

Wrong. There is a difference between a "person" and a "human" when it comes to legal interpretation. I think the real problem is that many who are "usually" religious fail to see where individual rights eminate from.

You only have one natural right, and that is the right to your own life. All other rights are logical extrapolations from that base right, because without them you wouldn't be able to physically observe and exercise the base natural right to life.

Actually that was completely correct- you do not cede that it is a Human life, theirfor how is my statement false?

Jade Rat said:
They constantly referee to it as "Fetus" witch is strange, because that word means "young one","little one" and "little person" in Latin.

Its not strange at all. Do you call your born child a fetus??

The reason the word is used, is to separate the obvious physical reality in words.

A fetus is a dependent life form, a parasitic life form that lives in a host, at the will of the host. A child is an individual, not living within another living, rights holding person. They are in no way the same physically, nor should they be described in the same way if intellectual honesty is to be maintained.


That is one of the points i was making- how the word has been perverted into not saying "Child"

To be honest, i find you calling anything thing a "Parasite" to be vile and disgusting. It is a Life form, a Human life form- how could you possibly referee to it as a "Parasite" Do you not find this utterly barbaric? The sadder part of that is- you are not the first person i heard describe the life as " A parasite" - even so, it raises a interesting point- do you consider the this statement to be true?

"It is the Mother's body, and it is her choice"



Jade Rat said:
The majority of them claim it is "The Womans body" Yet it holds its own unique DNA that is not identical to the mother's.

Do you deny that a fetus resides in a womans body?
Do you deny that if that "umbillical cord" were severed, the fetus would die unless delivered and put on life support?
Do you deny there is a physical connection between mother and fetus?
Do you deny that a fetus can't exist outside the womb without special care to its special needs?

Please explain.

Gladly, and i shall in great detail.

The "fetus" as you call it, resides inside the womb of the Mother, as a result of the Father impregnating her during intercourse- yet i see your argument- but consider this view.


Lets say you own a homeless shelter for the mentally ill- you feed and protect many from the elements. As they are Dependant on you (and the government) for food, clothing, and protection from the elements- does this mean they belong to you to live and die at your own whim?
For surely if they are detached from the home or the 'womb' they would surly die.

Is this not a properly analogy of the womb, and what i intemperate your point as?


If their a physical connection between Mother and 'fetus'? Absolutely, it is the Female's job to ensure she feeds her unborn child, with nutrients to ensure a healthy delivery, and in most societies it is the Father's 'job' to provide her with the means of witch to do this.

Would the 'fetus' die unless it was placed on life support? of course, unless it was developed enough to breath on it's own, yet under the same argument, you throw a lot of sick into the category as well do you not? For surely if life support systems where taken away- a large potion of the Human population would surly die as a result.


'Do you deny that a fetus can't exist outside the womb without special care to its special needs?'

Of course not, their is really no other way life itself could survive- Humans are protected by the Earth- when you think about it the Earth is a 'womb' it Shields us from a hostile environment that is space.


Jade Rat said:
I just do not get how Humans can be so heartless as to deny a unborn baby it's life-

A fetus has no right to life, nor any means to claim or interpret rights, nor could it exercise rights, without the EXPRESS WILL AND SUPPORTING ACTIONS OF THE MOTHER. Obviously then, it is the mothers choice that matters.

It has nothing to do with "heartless", it has everything to do with logic and reason and demanding a lack of contradiction in our system of law.

In todays world- that is correct, however that is why billions fight for the rights of those who can not yet speak.

Actually, the Mother does not willingly or unwillingly support the unborn- her reproductive systems are completely self automated. Only with outside intervention can she manipulate her reproductive systems into not supporting the life within her- something Humans created and is independent of God or Evolution (Which ever you believe in)


Jade Rat said:
for all we know we killed the Man or Woman who would have cured Cancer!

Point?!?

huh?
[/quote]

[PostmodernProphet]

WHY. Because they aren't able to exercise, have conception of, perceive or physically claim their rights, as they are not INDIVIDUALS, PERSONS, BORN, LEGAL ENTITIES.

Again, I ask you.... where do YOU think rights eminate from?

that is a circular argument......the rights come from law......again, they are only denied those rights UNDER THE LAW because of an arbitrary standard.....WHY do you deny them those rights

[4Reaganomics]

PMP, Certain people do not have to use cogent premises with logical consistency

they can just say "It is because it is"

[AnnEsthesia]

So a woman who is raped has a choice in the matter? She should be forced to carry her attacker's seed within her if her mental condition does not make her willing to do so? So a 12 year old who's sick grandfather molests her should be forced to carry to term, despite it being bad for her health and not exactly a positive situation? If a woman is left with the choice to carry to term or risk potentially dying, she should be forced to carry it, even though she may die?

Yea, they are all sluts and should be forced to deal with the consequences of 'their' spreading their legs.

[PostmodernProphet]

So a woman who is raped has a choice in the matter? She should be forced to carry her attacker's seed within her if her mental condition does not make her willing to do so? So a 12 year old who's sick grandfather molests her should be forced to carry to term, despite it being bad for her health and not exactly a positive situation? If a woman is left with the choice to carry to term or risk potentially dying, she should be forced to carry it, even though she may die?

Yea, they are all sluts and should be forced to deal with the consequences of 'their' spreading their legs.


so, if we agree to permit abortions in cases of incest and rape, can we get a ban on the other 99% of abortions?....or is your strawman really that important to you?

[AnnEsthesia]

It is not a strawman. Some of you would force those women (and children) to carry to term because of your own ideologies. And that is just sick.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Jade Rat said:
Logic such as deciding she should have sex before she is able to handle the consequences of her actions? Killing the problem is a convenient way to avoid responsibility for ones own actions.

Preventing an unwanted child by abortion is taking responsibility, just not in a form you subjectively agree with.

Jade Rat said:
Wouldn't adoption be a much better 'choice' to a abortion?

Yes, if it is a choice and the voluntary choice of the mother.

I never said people should choose to abort INSTEAD of adoption.

Jade Rat said:
The reason why we see so many unadopted children in America- is not because no one wants them, quite the contrary it is due to governmental interference when dealing with American children.

No doubt, and look at what people are pushing for.... more laws, more government interference.

Jade Rat said:
But lets get into the 'meat' of what you said, you seem to Deny that it is a Human life-

Not at all. I fully accept and pointed out to prophet that I recognize the life as human, just not a person. It is a potential person, that becomes a person when born.

In the womb, it is not ABLE to have rights, as it is not an individual its a parasitic life attached to a host life that has full rights.

JAde Rat said:
from whence i got "potentual person" I put forward this, at what point would you cede the notion that it is a Human?

Its a human from conception, but not a person regarding individual rights until delivery, birth.

Jade Rat said:
I believe it starts at conception, due to it having Human DNA- here is something i found interesting;

"The fact that the zygote is the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes"


Is this not clear evidence that the life inside the womb first began immediately at conception?

No doubt, its life, its a human life, but only a POTENTIAL person, only a POTENTIAL being. At any time during the pregnancy natural abortion can occur. At any time during pregnancy, the fetus can die by severe trauma or stress to the mother. The POTENTIAL does not EQUAL a LIVING BREATHING BEING, therefore the mothers rights must take precedent.

You are arguing that a woman should become a 2nd class citizen once impregnated, as you recognize the fetus's rights above the host it rides in, survives on, depends on.

It flies in the face of a right to life as intended.

Jade Rat said:
The argument you give, leads me to believe you intend to allow parents expecting to terminate a unborn, in the hopes it will not burden the mother, is this interpretation correct?

I am stating the obvious.... which is that only a person in this situation can accurately assess the total effect EITHER choice will have, and based on that, their rights MUST have precedent over the unborn.

Jade Rat said:
In America, we prize our selfs for taking responsibility for our actions-

Don't lecture me on being an American. I am an American by BIRTH, I have served my country, and I take my oath to preserve and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic quite seriously, and for life.

I didn't become an American by conception, but by BIRTH.

Jade Rat said:
we must live with, and learn from mistakes we make in our lifetimes- that is how Americans better them selfs and adapt to become better.

You seem to assume abortion has no impact on the potential mother?
You seem to assume this impact is not a learning experience in itself?

Jade Rat said:
When you take away individual responsibility for the actions made out of freewill- you destroy not only the experience but set a example for others saying you can get out of your bad choices by doing X,Y, and Z.

The only way to take away individual responsibility is to deny the individual the choice. The choice exists whether it is legal or not, and you are arguing over state sanction, not whether the act CAN be done or not, only if it can be done safely, legally.

Jade Rat said:
Now, no one is going to force the mother to marry the man who she had relations with, or force her to keep the child- adoption agencies are more than willing to take the child- so perhaps both sides win in this case yes?

Only if the situation comes by volitional choice of the mother.

Jade Rat said:
The child is not killed, and the 'Mother' (I use quotes because Mother to me is really a earned title in many respects) is not subject to her 'mistake'.

You have no title nor position to judge this, nor is it a child.

Jade Rat said:
Is this sarcasm?

Its fact.

Jade Rat said:
Surely you wouldn't use this argument with you are jugging a mass murder (No paroell) If you see, say Charals Manson killing people- do you not form a opinion of right and wrong?

Of course, as an opinion, which is subjective and based on my individual values and morals. Emotion must be tempered by logic and reason however.

Jade Rat said:
Do you not feel for the victims?

Certainly.

Jade Rat said:
Actually that was completely correct- you do not cede that it is a Human life, theirfor how is my statement false?

I do clearly state it is a human life, but not a person in the legal sense or the literal sense.

It is a fetus, it has no ability to claim a right to life. It exists at the will and ability of the mother to provide for it. It eats, it grows, it forms into a PERSON, but it is not a person.

-A fetus is not an individual, its a parasitic life form that resides in a rights bearing individual, that only has rights by the extension of the will of the individual carrying it.

-A fetus is not a person, its a potential person. It does not have reason, it has a potential for reason. Its existence is solely reliant on the will of the mother, and even stress in the mother can kill a fetus if extreme enough.

-A fetus is not a citizen, nor a legal individual entity, nor a rights bearing entity, since it bears no similarity to a legal person, a legal citizen, a legal individual, or a rights holding entity. It is a POTENTIAL entity.

-An abortion is a privately contracted process, between a volitionally aware woman, and a volitionally aware doctor/surgeon. These people have rights, and one of which is a right to privacy regarding personal matters, and another the right to free-will, voluntary conscent contract. The fetus is not counted in this transaction, due to the fact that a fetus, is not a person, and individual, or a rights holding legal entity.

More from my perspective on this issue:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351&news_iv_ctrl=1087

Jade Rat said:
To be honest, i find you calling anything thing a "Parasite" to be vile and disgusting. It is a Life form, a Human life form- how could you possibly referee to it as a "Parasite" Do you not find this utterly barbaric?

No, its quite factual. The fetus is absolutely, totally dependent on the mother for life while living within her, therefore, it feeds parasiticly, its life is parasitic in relation to its host.

Jade Rat said:
The sadder part of that is- you are not the first person i heard describe the life as " A parasite" - even so, it raises a interesting point- do you consider the this statement to be true?

Its obviously factually true. Are you saying the fetus can live in the mother without its umbillical connection? Are you saying a fetus can live "on its own" if removed from the mother after conception?

Jade Rat said:
Lets say you own a homeless shelter for the mentally ill- you feed and protect many from the elements. As they are Dependant on you (and the government) for food, clothing, and protection from the elements- does this mean they belong to you to live and die at your own whim?

They are living breathing persons, individuals, citizens, legal entities, with full rights, and don't reside in a person.

Is this not obviously a completely different situation to you?!?

JAde Rat said:
If their a physical connection between Mother and 'fetus'? Absolutely, it is the Female's job to ensure she feeds her unborn child, with nutrients to ensure a healthy delivery, and in most societies it is the Father's 'job' to provide her with the means of witch to do this.

You say "job" as though there is a contract?!? To whom is this contract? Show me one?

Jade said:
Would the 'fetus' die unless it was placed on life support? of course, unless it was developed enough to breath on it's own, yet under the same argument, you throw a lot of sick into the category as well do you not?

AGain, they are LIVING BREATHING RIGHTS HOLDING CITIZENS, no comparison.

JAde Rat said:
Of course not, their is really no other way life itself could survive- Humans are protected by the Earth-

Say that to a Tsunami victim that has lost their family, an earthquake victim who has lost everything they own and their family, a flood victim that dies in "the womb" as you call it. You downplay the common struggle between man and nature to a point of denial.

JAde Rat said:
when you think about it the Earth is a 'womb' it Shields us from a hostile environment that is space.

To a point, it surely does. Nature also poses one of our biggest threats to life, and without logic and reason it would surely have claimed many more lives than it has.

Jade Rat said:
In todays world- that is correct, however that is why billions fight for the rights of those who can not yet speak.

Because they are illogical? Emotionally unchecked? In denial of womens full rights to life?

Jade Rat said:
Actually, the Mother does not willingly or unwillingly support the unborn- her reproductive systems are completely self automated.

FALSE. They are automated provided they have food, shelter, healthcare and enough peace of mind to carry a healthy child to term.

Jade Rat said:
Only with outside intervention can she manipulate her reproductive systems into not supporting the life within her- something Humans created and is independent of God or Evolution (Which ever you believe in)

That is one of the things that make humans unique, the ability to choose death over life, reason over emotion or instinct.

Jade Rat said:
huh?

I was pointing out an appeal to emotion. :love:

[PostmodernProphet]

It is not a strawman. Some of you would force those women (and children) to carry to term because of your own ideologies. And that is just sick.


I don't see where it is any more sick than killing the rest of the kids.....

[AnnEsthesia]

I am waiting for someone to start arguing that children are being denied their rights by not being allowed to vote. After all, they are just like adults and they should be able to do all the things that the rest of us can do.

Right? Humans should have equal rights, no matter what stage of life...

[AnnEsthesia]

It is not a strawman. Some of you would force those women (and children) to carry to term because of your own ideologies. And that is just sick.


I don't see where it is any more sick than killing the rest of the kids.....



You have never been raped or the victim of incest. You have never had to make the choice between life and carrying to term. You want a woman to have to die instead of aborting, since... gee... maybe they are wrong.

That is pure bullshit sickness.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Prophet said:
that is a circular argument......the rights come from law......again, they are only denied those rights UNDER THE LAW because of an arbitrary standard.

There is NOTHING arbitrary about the physical seperation of a parasitic life to an individual life, the conversion from an unborn having no rights, to a living, breathing, individual person and legal entity.

To call that arbitrary is as I stated from my first post in this thread... intellectually dishonest, denial.

Prophet said:
....WHY do you deny them those rights

Because they can't exercise them, claim them, perceive them, therefore have no NATURAL ENTITLEMENT TO THEM THROUGH BIRTH.

You can't own a life YOU YOURSELF DON'T OWN. A fetus does not own its life, it lives as a fully and entirely dependent being until birth. IT shits through its mother, it eats through its mother, it breathes through its mother, it EXISTS AT THE WILL AND ABILITY of the mother.

To call that arbitrary is a perversion of logic.

[Alonzo]

I haven't heard that since I was a kid anne, and other kids said it, but I saw a really bizarre one on free republic yesterday. They were going on their usually "100 million people died in our abortion holocaust" rant and then added "and another 20 million, who would have been born to those aborted, never got the chance to live either!"

I'm not sure of the numbers they used, but they were adding the aborted fetus's children into the total.