Siding with Death

Author: ethang5

Posts

Total: 327
#91
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
You know, it is quite a troubling time people live in now. Political discourse has already reached rock bottom. I do not see the benefit in vilifying an entire group of people that you do not see eye-to-eye with and assuming that they stand with "death." Even as someone who has supported conservative stances in the past, I cannot say that my ideological opposites were completely wrong all of the time. Moreover, even if I thought that someone's ideas were destructive, I see no progress being made by attacking the very ideology that they represent. I am fairly certain most people would agree that white supremacy is a destructive ideology. However, a black man named Daryl Davis changed the minds of dozens of KKK members through no use of assumptions, anger, or hatred. He formed a common ground with his ideological opponent, and emphasized talking over fighting.

As Davis states:
"If 2 enemies are talking, then they are not fighting."

If you really wanted to change people's minds and you aren't just trying to piss people off, then I would imagine that this should be the method that you use.

On the other hand, if you only want to troll and "trigger the libtards," then keep on doing what you are doing sir. Perhaps you even aspire to make as many people annoyed/bitter as possible. If this is the case, I feel immense sympathy for you.
Topic's author
#92
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@blamonkey
If you really wanted to change people's minds and you aren't just trying to piss people off,....
False dichotomy. Are there really no other options? Very few people are "pissed off". The immature and insecure ones may be, but I don't really care.

...then I would imagine that this should be the method that you use.
And again we come to the place we always come to with liberals. " You should do/think/feel the way I do."

On the other hand, if you only want to troll and "trigger the libtards," then keep on doing what you are doing sir.
You seem triggered. Are you a libtard? I don't care about triggering anyone, whoever libtards are.

Perhaps you even aspire to make as many people annoyed/bitter as possible. If this is the case, I feel immense sympathy for you.
Your capacity for empathy is impressive. And now that you've told us how wonderful you are in comparison to me, perhaps you will go back to your life where you think racist tripe from Spike Lee is reality.

Have a good day.

#93
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
obviously pro deathist, they also side with killing old people with death panels/rationing boards
#94
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@ethang5
What does "individual" mean? And so what? The embryo is a human being.

Independent { seperate } = individual { seperate } and means IN-spirating oxygen into its lungs via its airways to outside of their body.

Non-independent = fetus { embryo etc } is organism of the mother and recieves oxygen and nutrition via umbilichord ergo not a human individual.

So, keep your _____n nose *v* out of pregnant womens body unless they give you their consent.

You people are sick-n-the-head and should be Locked Away from civilized society.




#95
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
And killing some embryos ends some people. So?

They are not independent/individual people. 

They are an organism of the pregnant woman, who herself is not yet a mother until the feturs/baby is born-out and IN-spirating oxygen from a source other than mother. Do you understand this. No? I didnt think so.

 So, keep your _____n nose *v* out of pregnant womens body unless they give you their consent.

Your type of  people are sick-n-the-head and should be Locked Away from civilized society.

And the sooner the better.



#96
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
You seem to have completely missed my point. All I was trying to say is that if you want people to buy what you are saying, it would be better to not say that they "side with death." No, I am not a "libtard" and yes I would imagine that some immature people would be offended. I am not offended. I am quite amused actually. I never said that you should think/feel/ do what I would do. I gave you a recommendation. As far as the "false dichotomy" is concerned, it is relatively hard to piss someone off AND change their minds. Later, you specify that you just do not care about making others angry because they are immature. I'm glad you wished for me to have a good day, (you seem to have a lot of empathy yourself for suggesting that,) but I am left confused as to the goal of this thread that you created. If you wanted to debate whether liberal policies are worse than conservative ones, there is a debate section. If you wanted to make an entire thread lambasting a political party you don't see where to eye with and then call certain people who are triggered "immature," then you are doing a good job. It is a sad sign that political discourse has degenerated to name calling, passive aggressive posts, and general outrage over minor issues.
Topic's author
#97
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@blamonkey
I am left confused as to the goal of this thread that you created. 
Same thing I think about your post. But notice I did not ask you to explain any goals to me, I did not give you any unsolicited  "recommendations", or express any sympathy for you.

Did you notice that?
#98
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
Ok. 

#99
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
A small, sterile, brain dead 36 year old human female is a woman.
Biologically, an adult is a human or other organism that has reached sexual maturity.

Yeah, we agree doofus. She should be.
Ok, what privacy invading laws do you propose we enact in order to enforce (charging a mother with murder/criminal-negligence/manslaughter for a miscarriage) such a policy?

Only if the death is due to the action or inaction of someone. Not every death.
Ok, what privacy invading laws do you propose we enact in order to determine (charging a mother with murder/criminal-negligence/manslaughter for a miscarriage) guilt in such matters?

I agree. What is your point?
I'm glad that we can agree that child abuse is a crime.

Still, not every death is due to a direct result of parental neglect and or abuse.
In the case of a miscarriage, how do you propose we make this distinction?

Am I reading you the law? There was a time killing a black man did not meet the legal definition of murder. So what? The question here is, " Is it murder?" Not, "does the current law call it murder?"
If you don't care about the law, why are you trying to change the law?

A baby is not a part of the mother.
An embryo is part of the mother.

Please give us an example [of different genes in the same human] Dr. Science.
There was a famous case where a woman's children did not match her DNA in a maternity test, this led to the discovery of a phenomena called "human chimeras".

One way chimeras can happen naturally in humans is that a fetus can absorb its twin. This can occur with fraternal twins, if one embryo dies very early in pregnancy and some of its cells are "absorbed" by the other twin. The remaining fetus will have two sets of cells: its own original set, plus the one from its twin.

In some cases, fetal cells [from their offspring] may stay in a woman's body for years. In a 2012 study, researchers analyzed the brains of 59 women ages 32 to 101, after the women had died. They found that 63 percent of these women had traces of male DNA from fetal cells in their brains. The oldest woman to have fetal cells in her brain was 94 years old, suggesting that these cells can sometimes stay in the body for a lifetime.

Cancer cells have the same genes.
When cells become cancerous, they also become 100 times more likely to genetically mutate than regular cells, researchers have found. The findings may explain why cells in a tumor have so many genetic mutations, but could also be bad news for cancer treatments that target a particular gene controlling cancer malignancy.

What does "individual" mean? And so what? The embryo is a human being.
Individual: existing as a distinct entity; separate.  The embryo is comprised of human cells but is not an individual because it is 100% dependent.

Genetics [is the key distinction between humans and other mammals].
On a letter-by-letter basis, the genes [of mice and men] are 85 percent the same.

Previously it has been suggested that differences between human and mice genome can be as high as 15%, but recent studies based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA have revealed this differences to as low as 2.5%.

So, mr. "logical worldview" do you believe that mice should be granted 97.5% human rights since, genetically, they are a near perfect match?

Please explain how your opinion on the matter is based on science?
It isn't opinion, it is science. The mother and baby are genetically different. Two different people.
By this logic, a genetically mutated cancerous tumor and its host also qualify as two different people.

As an aside, you should check out the 1993 movie "Patlabor 2" which covers this particular subject quite well.

If it cannot exist without the mother, it is part of the mother.
Illogical. This is just something you are saying. Your opinion not based on sound reasoning. Medicine is getting better and better at keeping babies alive without the mother. Some babies are even conceived outside the mothers body.
Simply because I could hypothetically donate a kidney and it might survive intact for some period of time in another person does not mean that particular kidney is not part of me.

Even a parasite would be considered part of the host if it was 100% dependent.

A cancerous tumor, with genetically mutated DNA would also be considered part of the host. 
#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
I don't give unsolicited medical advice to strangers. Why would you think I do? Are you confused?
If you are telling strangers what medical procedures they should have access to, you are giving medical advice to strangers.

How I choose to spend my time is not your business, and I don't care what you think of of my choices.
Certainly, do as you wish, but don't try to pretend your opinions are part of a "logical worldview" when you just now admitted they are purely arbitrary.

...and how do you prioritize your focus?
I stay within science and morality.
In other words, purely arbitrary, since you refuse to present any logic connecting your actions with your definitions of either science or morality.

do you understand that women are often coerced, plied with false promises, and yes, sometimes even forced to have sex?
Sometimes billy-bob. Only sometimes. And rarely. You talk as if every pregnancy is due to rape.
An estimated 70% of sexual assaults go unreported to law enforcement officials.
About 32,000 pregnancies result from sexual assaults or rape every year in the United States [that we know of].

1 in 5 women are victims of sexual assault.

So if you know more than 5 women, you probably know someone who either has been or will be a victim of sexual assault.

You kill immigrants based on predicted outcome.
Lie. We do not kill immigrants. We send them home.
We send them to war zones, to be killed.

There are many things that kill people.  Alcohol kills people.  Prescription drugs, illicit drugs, cigarettes, and sugar all kill people.

And yet we allow these things to continue being used.

If you can prevent a death, and you do nothing, most people believe you are morally responsible for that death.

It's like the classic trolley problem.

By standing by and doing nothing about alcohol and prescription drugs and the rest of it, you are killing people.

And seriously, by advocating for the death penalty, you are killing people.

You do not "consider all life sacred" any more than the psycho liberals do.

Conservatives only bring up "all life is sacred" specifically when they want to tell a woman what she should do with her own body.

In every other case, in every case of (already born) people dying, they say, "suck it up, it's your own damn fault".

Can't afford a doctor? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"

Can't escape a war zone? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"

Can't break a deadly addiction? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"

Topic's author
#101
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
You aren't even thinking. You're just spouting liberal nonsense and contradicting yourself all over the board. Let me show you.

Ok, what privacy invading laws do you propose we enact in order to enforce (charging a mother with murder/criminal-negligence/manslaughter for a miscarriage) such a policy?
Hold this thought. You obviously think the right to privacy should trump the right to life. But we need no new laws. Laws against murder are already on the books.

I'm glad that we can agree that child abuse is a crime.
We don't agree. You think the crime should not be prosecuted because that would violate the privacy of the mother. I know why you're so eager to have me agree with you, but I don't. I do not agree that killing defenseless infants is OK.

Still, not every death is due to a direct result of parental neglect and or abuse.

In the case of a miscarriage, how do you propose we make this distinction?
Exactly how we make the distinction now. Police, witnesses, medical examiners, courts, common sense.

Am I reading you the law? There was a time killing a black man did not meet the legal definition of murder. So what? The question here is, " Is it murder?" Not, "does the current law call it murder?"

If you don't care about the law, why are you trying to change the law?
I do care about the law. Are you confused? When have I tried to change the law? Are you confused? The law right now condemns murder. It doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be enforced.

A baby is not a part of the mother.

An embryo is part of the mother.
No sir, it is not. Medical technology is reducing how early a baby can survive outside the womb. By your lame argument, person hood changes based on technology. In 1892, a baby could not survive outside of the mother before 6 months. So a baby up to six months old was not a person in 1982. But today, babies as young as 5 months old can survive outside the mother. So today, personhood begins at 5 months? Does that make sense to you?

Topic's author
#102
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
There are examples of humans with different genes in different parts of their bodies.
Please give us an example Dr. Science.

There was a famous case where a woman's children did not match her DNA in a maternity test, this led to the discovery of a phenomena called "human chimeras".

One way chimeras can happen naturally in humans is that a fetus can absorb its twin. This can occur with fraternal twins, if one embryo dies very early in pregnancy and some of its cells are "absorbed" by the other twin. The remaining fetus will have two sets of cells: its own original set, plus the one from its twin.

In some cases, fetal cells [from their offspring] may stay in a woman's body for years. In a 2012 study, researchers analyzed the brains of 59 women ages 32 to 101, after the women had died. They found that 63 percent of these women had traces of male DNA from fetal cells in their brains. The oldest woman to have fetal cells in her brain was 94 years old, suggesting that these cells can sometimes stay in the body for a lifetime.

Pay close attention now liberal, the following might short circuit your liberal brain.

I say the baby is not part of the mother, because they have different genes.
You reply that sometimes people have different genes in them,
I ask for an example and your example is……..a baby!!

Lol. What happens inside the heads of liberals?

When cells become cancerous, they also become 100 times more likely to genetically mutate than regular cells, researchers have found.
Cancer cells are always identifiable as the genes of the person they are taken from. You just have a poor understanding of genetics.

What does "individual" mean? And so what? The embryo is a human being.

Individual: existing as a distinct entity; separate.  The embryo is comprised of human cells but is not an individual because it is 100% dependent.
It it is arbitrary and a logical leap to assume that person hood depends on being separate. Some conjoined twins are not separate and cannot survive apart. Would you call them one person? A baby is a different person, regardless of dependency.

Genetics [is the key distinction between humans and other mammals]. On a letter-by-letter basis, the genes [of mice and men] are 85 percent the same.
Previously it has been suggested that differences between human and mice genome can be as high as 15%, but recent studies based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA have revealed this differences to as low as 2.5%.

So, mr. "logical worldview" do you believe that mice should be granted 97.5% human rights since, genetically, they are a near perfect match?
No. Because that is not how we assign rights. Mice are not human, and are not 97.5% human. Genes are not interpreted on a "letter by letter basis. Rights are not given based on genetic percentage. You just have a poor understanding of genetics.
Topic's author
#103
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain how your opinion on the matter is based on science?
It isn't opinion, it is science. The mother and baby are genetically different. Two different people.

By this logic, a genetically mutated cancerous tumor and its host also qualify as two different people.
No. Because a cancer cell is not genetically different. You just are uneducated about genetics.

If it cannot exist without the mother, it is part of the mother.
Illogical. This is just something you are saying. Your opinion not based on sound reasoning. Medicine is getting better and better at keeping babies alive without the mother. Some babies are even conceived outside the mothers body.

Simply because I could hypothetically donate a kidney and it might survive intact for some period of time in another person does not mean that particular kidney is not part of me.
Your kidney is genetically identical to you. A baby isn't. That is why the kidney is considered part of you whether its in or out of you.

Even a parasite would be considered part of the host if it was 100% dependent.
Untrue. Some parasites are 100% dependent but even your own body will fight and reject them as foreign.

A cancerous tumor, with genetically mutated DNA would also be considered part of the host.
Only to a science ignorant person looking for an excuse to murder babies.

I don't give unsolicited medical advice to strangers. Why would you think I do? Are you confused?

If you are telling strangers what medical procedures they should have access to, you are giving medical advice to strangers.

Then you think just my talking is “medical advice”. Since I don't debate stupidity, I can leave this one untouched.

How I choose to spend my time is not your business, and I don't care what you think of of my choices.

Certainly, do as you wish, but don't try to pretend your opinions are part of a "logical worldview" when you just now admitted they are purely arbitrary.

I made no such admittal. You have not been able to scratch my world view. Yours is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. You win by logic, not assertions. Use some.

...and how do you prioritize your focus?
I stay within science and morality.

In other words, purely arbitrary,
If science and morality are “purely arbitrary” to you, OK sure
Topic's author
#104
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
..do you understand that women are often coerced, plied with false promises, and yes, sometimes even forced to have sex?
Sometimes billy-bob. Only sometimes. And rarely. You talk as if every pregnancy is due to rape.

An estimated 70% of sexual assaults go unreported to law enforcement officials.
Unrelated to our subject which is Pregnancies. And pregnancy is rarely due to rape.

About 32,000 pregnancies result from sexual assaults or rape every year in the United States [that we know of].
Confirms my point. Relatively few are due to rape.

So if you know more than 5 women, you probably know someone who either has been or will be a victim of sexual assault.
Pregnancies from rape are rare. When you are done with your strawman, that will still be true. You talk as if every pregnancy is due to rape. Very few are.

You kill immigrants based on predicted outcome.

Lie. We do not kill immigrants. We send them home.

We send them to war zones, to be killed.

Liberals are the champions of privacy right? You say we should not poke our noses into the business of other countries. Their war is not our business. They should stay at home. Why is privacy sacred only for pregnant mothers?

There are many things that kill people.  Alcohol kills people.  Prescription drugs, illicit drugs, cigarettes, and sugar all kill people.
And yet we allow these things to continue being used.
Ok, what privacy invading laws do you propose we enact in order to enforce such a policy? Or does privacy matter only when you want an innocent infant dead?

If you can prevent a death, and you do nothing, most people believe you are morally responsible for that death.

That is why most people are against abortion jedthro.

It's like the classic abortion problem. By standing by and doing nothing about abortions, you are killing people.

You do not "consider all life sacred" any more than the psycho liberals do.
We do not murder defenseless babies. And we see a moral difference between an innocent infant and a mass murdering terrorist.

Conservatives only bring up "all life is sacred" specifically when they want to tell a woman what she should do with her own body.
Or when they want to save a life and solve the trolly problem.

In every other case, in every case of (already born) people dying, they say, "suck it up, it's your own damn fault".
Only the babies are innocent. You go “save” killers, we'll concentrate on innocents. OK?

Can't afford a doctor? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. I know people who claim not to be able to afford a doctor but spend 500 dollar a week on drugs.

Can't escape a war zone? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
Who’s fault is it? Are you daft? Conservatives know we aren't responsible for citizens of other countries.

Can't break a deadly addiction? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
Whose fault is it? What happened to privacy and lordship over your own body? Privacy is too sacred to break when saving the life of an innocent child, but can be violated when spending other peoples money to save a stinking drug addict?

You are self contradictory and illogical. Your worldview makes no sense. We don't want your PC illogic.
Topic's author
#105
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@blamonkey
Ok
Wow. After the compulsive obsessive aggression of magiAintReal, that was refreshing.

I want to change my response. Here.

Thank you blamonkey. Your recommendations gave me much to think about. I hope we have a fruitful discussion in some other thread more worthy of you presence. And thanks for caring.
#106
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@ethang5
Thanks. I did not realize I sounded so passive aggressive when I typed out the original post. Sorry about that. 
Topic's author
#107
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@blamonkey
No worries. I'm the sensitive type. ; )
#108
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@ethang5
Only the babies are innocent. You go “save” killers, we'll concentrate on innocents. OK?
So you don't want the innocent "babies" to go to heaven. Can you spell hypocrite?

#109
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@ethang5
But today, babies as young as 5 months old can survive outside the mother. So today, personhood begins at 5 months? Does that make sense to you?
Get your  ______n immoral nose out of womens bodys unless they give you there consent to stick it there. Your sick-n-the-head and you should be Locked Away Today! 

Read my lips/text and place you ego based holy roller over biological life and pregnant womens basic human rights.

Independent individual = baby that has taken first INspiration of oxygen and umbilical has been severed.

Mother = woman who has given birth to baby/fetus she fed all oxygen and nutrients to many weeks.

Baby/fetus = attached to uterus/womb and receives oxygen and other nutrients via umbilical from pregnant woman

Human = fertized egg aka conception that is an organism of the pregnant woman till birth, and for brief period of time when traveling is non-attached when falling form fallopian tubes to become attached to uterus wall


Topic's author
#110
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
You aren't any kind of authority on women, medicene, or science. Who gave you the authority to speak for them? Or decide when a human is a person? Or tell me what to do?

Away with you.


#111
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@ethang5
You aren't any kind of authority on women, medicene, or science. Who gave you the authority to speak for them? Or decide when a human is a person? Or tell me what to do?

As per your usual have not any shred of authority, rational, logical common sense that invalidates any of my comments as stated.

You have your immoral ---and lack of empathy for the pregnant woman--, opinion.

Please share when you actually have anything of significant relevance to say in these regard. You do not becuase you have not any moral, rational, logical common sense to offer others on this issue.  Sick-n-the-Head

Lock Your Type Away Today so as to keep you _____n nose *v* out of pregnant womens bodies when they have not given your consent to stick your nose there. SIck-n-the-head is what you and your type are.

Sick-N-the-Head.


Topic's author
#112
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@mustardness
Just as I thought, you aren't any kind of authority on women, medicene, or science. Who gave you the authority to speak for them? Or decide when a human is a person? Or tell me what to do?

Who are you? Just some poor spelling antifa on the net.

Away with you.
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5

You obviously think the right to privacy should trump the right to life [miscarriage].
Let me restate,

(IFF) human a soul sparks into being at the very moment of conception

(THEN) every miscarriage is very likely a murder/manslaughter/child abuse case.

(AND) every miscarriage should be reported and investigated to the fullest extent of the law.

You think the [proposed] crime [miscarriage] should not be prosecuted because that would violate the privacy of the mother.
You are jumping to conclusions.

(IFF) human a soul sparks into being at the very moment of conception

(THEN) every miscarriage is very likely a murder/manslaughter/child abuse case.

(AND) every miscarriage should be reported and investigated to the fullest extent of the law.

I never suggested that miscarriage SHOULDN'T be prosecuted.  I merely suggested that current law is not prepared to address every miscarriage.

(IFF) you believe abortion is murder, (THEN) every preventable miscarriage is also murder.

Exactly how we make the distinction now. Police, witnesses, medical examiners, courts, common sense [miscarriage].
Oh, ok.  Do you really think that is going to be adequate?

But today, babies as young as 5 months old can survive outside the mother.
Awesome.  So now conservatives are going to pass a bill that gives all women free embryonic extraction at 5 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Finally!!  A perfect solution to everyone's favorite political firestorm!!!!!!!!!!!!

This will probably slash abortions in half OVERNIGHT and probably by 75% over the next year!!!!!!!!!!!  IT'S A NEW ERA!!!!!

I say the baby is not part of the mother, because they have different genes. [...]
The reason the woman's children did not match her maternal DNA was because she (the mother) had absorbed a (non-identical) twin in the womb before she (the mother) was born.  This made the mother a human chimera.  This means that some of her internal organs had different DNA than the rest of her body.  In other words, her saliva and hair and skin and blood had matching DNA (which was sampled for the maternity test) but her reproductive system had the DNA of her absorbed (non-identical) twin.  Genetically, it appeared that her children were her nieces and nephews.

There are an unknown number of humans who have internal organs with different DNA than the rest of their bodies.

In other words, not every part of a person's body has matching DNA.

Some conjoined twins are not separate and cannot survive apart. 

Rights are not given based on genetic percentage.
Good point.  So why were you talking about genetics?

The mother and baby are genetically different. Two different people.
Clearly, not every organ or tumor or migrated cells within a single person that is genetically distinct from the majority of cells is considered "a different person".
#114
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5

Then you think just my talking is “medical advice”.
Yes.  Suggesting that the state invade "patient/doctor confidentiality" constitutes medical advice.

I made no such admittal. [of arbitrary decisions]
Ok, so when you said that it was more realistic to try and save the lives of every human that has already been born, and less realistic to try and save the lives of every embryo that has yet to be born, and you refused to explain why you decided to choose the latter rather than the former, and you further bristled with "I don't have to explain anything", in your own opinion, does that sound more "logical" or "arbitrary"?

If science and morality are “purely arbitrary” to you, OK sure
Until you explain exactly how your understanding of "science" and "morality" relate to the subject at hand, you are making a purely arbitrary appeal to ignorance.  Science is not ontology.  This is an ontological problem.  Science cannot solve an ontological problem.

Confirms my point. Relatively few are due to rape.
32,000 a year is few?  You do realize that an estimated 70% of sexual assaults go unreported, right?

Their war is not our business. They [immigrants] should stay at home. Why is privacy sacred only for pregnant mothers?
People fleeing for their lives and being denied entry is not a privacy issue.

Ok, what privacy invading laws do you propose we enact in order to enforce such a policy? Or does privacy matter only when you want an innocent infant dead?
Outlawing dangerous and or deadly substances has nothing to do with privacy.

It's like the classic abortion problem. By standing by and doing nothing about abortions, you are killing people.
And yet you have no problem standing by and doing nothing when people are fleeing a war zone. 

You can't pretend "all life is sacred" is your guiding principle.

Only the babies are innocent. You go “save” killers, we'll concentrate on innocents. OK?
Either "all life is sacred" or "only unborn life is sacred up until the moment it is born".  Please chose only one option.  Because "innocent (already born) babies" die every day and you do nothing to help them.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. I know people who claim not to be able to afford a doctor but spend 500 dollar a week on drugs.
Red herring.  EVERYONE believes in "personal responsibility", EVERYONE believes people deserve a fair trial and should be sent to prison for their crimes.  Red herring.  Your example may be true, but it does not prove anything.  Are you denying that INNOCENT people die every day from preventable conditions and causes?  Are you somehow suggesting that all poor people deserve suffering and death?

Can't afford a doctor? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
Can't escape a war zone? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"
Can't break a deadly addiction? - "suck it up, it's your own damn fault"

Whose fault is it? What happened to privacy and lordship over your own body?
Someone begging for affordable rehab is not a privacy or personal sovereignty issue.  Nobody is suggesting we break into every home, force people to take drug and alcohol and blood pressure tests and drag them off to rehab. 

Offering assistance to needy people is not an invasion of privacy.
#115
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
just heard something interesting, when a sperm and egg unite, unique human chromosomes and dna are formed.  When remains are found they are tested to see if they are human if it's not obvious.  DNA test work because it's unique to the individual.  Now add in the laws that include special designations and or punishments for killing a pregnant woman and there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies.  I'm fairly ambivalent on the whole issue except for the inaccurate and down right false information to justify.

does having unique human dna and chromosomes make a human?  if not what does that make?
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
does having unique human dna and chromosomes make a human?  if not what does that make?
I'm pretty sure ethang5 believes that unique human DNA sparks into existence an individual human soul.

#117
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
that could be, but that's not relevant to me and my stance on the subject of inconsistencies.  White washing, sugar coating, whatever you want to call it is something I dislike regardless of the topic.  Let's be factual and constant.  It seems antithetical to the alt-left and "progressives", but let's be honest about the subject.
Topic's author
#118
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Let's be factual and constant.
Thank you. Let's be.

3RU7AL will say what a woman does with her body is a matter of privacy when it comes to abortion, but suddenly and inexplicably, it isn't a matter of privacy when it comes to drug addiction.

Or that the concept of privacy can apply to a woman, but not to a country.

How do you argue with someone whose argument encompasses both A and not A? And he is totally blind to the contradiction?
#119
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
We all want our cake and eat it too ;)  Often these threads start w/o any real start points, most of the time is spent trying to find what and where they are.  i've noticed when this attempt is made the instigator will abandon the thread for the reasons you stated, when it becomes too obvious of what they are actually doing and true intentions.
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
3RU7AL will say what a woman does with her body is a matter of privacy when it comes to abortion, but suddenly and inexplicably, it isn't a matter of privacy when it comes to drug addiction.

Or that the concept of privacy can apply to a woman, but not to a country.

How do you argue with someone whose argument encompasses both A and not A? And he is totally blind to the contradiction?
What a woman does with her body (and what they discuss with their physician) is a matter of privacy, UNLESS you consider an embryo an individual human with the full protection of the law.

(IFF) you consider an embryo an individual human with the full protection of the law (THEN) preventable miscarriages are either murder/manslaughter/or child abuse and should be investigated as such.

What a person does with their body (and what they discuss with their physician) is a matter of privacy, UNLESS that person puts another individual human with the full protection of the law in danger by their actions, or otherwise violates the law of the land (this includes purchasing and or producing and or transporting and or distributing illegal substances).

HOw in the name of all that is holy do you imagine that privacy applies to a country?  Do you understand that nearly every industrialized nation on earth has spies in nearly every other industrialized nation on earth?

Please explain exactly what statements you believe are logically in conflict.