Which is most evil: Circumcision, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Americans, filosofers

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Seriously, what's the paradox?

Change your avatar...

You are NOT Ted Striker.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asher
Change your avatar...

You are NOT Ted Striker.

QFT

[Ben Kenobi]

So is 'merely hours before'...does that make spermicidal gel or IUD evil as well? The same precursors to 'life' are there.

I'm not sure why the standard is just prior to conception. The standard is conception, and yes that would make things like IUDs out because they irritate the endometrium, and prevent the implantation of the embryo.

Indeed it is, no disagreements there. But isn't 2-4 days after conception a very arbitrary timescale?

Indeed it is. CyberShy, the morning after pill does not prevent abortions it causes them. Well said PH.

If you took a zygote out of a mother and put it on a benchtop, nothing would happen either - it cannot survive on its own. Both the gametes prior to fertilisation and the zygote need assistance and the right circumstances to progress.

And if I took provost harrison off the earth and put him in space, he would die. Everyone needs the right circumstances in order to live, there is no difference between taking the embryo out of the womb and taking PH into space. Both are environments in which they are non viable. Everyone needs food, shelter and water, for the embryo, all that is provided inside the mother's womb.

It is not at all. We are dealing with the oppression of man who is capable of making a conscious choice. With abortion, we are dealing with the precursor to life which has no capacity whatsoever to make such a choice.

And neither are severely mentally handicapped people. Does that mean we can kill them when they become unwanted because they are not 'moral actors'? No. Our civilisation is schizophrenic. We believe we must protect those who are without these characteristics of rational thought such as animals.

That is the whole principle of abortion, so the embryo never reaches that stage. A baby is very much aware and conscious, ergo, it is not the same at all.

So why then do abortion doctors recommend the use of anaestetics for the unborn child? It's because if you don't with an abortion, the child flops around and the mother can feel these movements.

No, they are parallel. People have sex all the time without wanting to procreate. If the child is not wanted, it can effectively be regarded as parasitic. However this is not usually the case, in which case it is wanted and is thus not parasitic. It all depends on the choice of the mother (or both parties involved in the pregnancy if the mother so wishes it). Simple as that.

So unwanted children can be parasitic? Why is it that only unwanted unborn children can be parasitic and not unwanted born children?

Secondly, no species considers its own offspring to be parasitic. Parasites are always of another species.

No, we are talking about the precursor to human life as I have stated on numerous occasions, where there is no level of self awareness due to a very rudimentary level of neurological development, if any at all. You could apply the same arguments to masturbation, where the precursors to hundreds of millions of lives, potentially, have been destroyed! Selective sentimentalism has no place in this debate.

No, because your DNA forms at conception, which is an indicator of an individual person apart from the mother and father. The father's sperm are his gametes which are just as much a part of his body as any other cell.

[Nubclear]

BK, if you have the time for this, you have the time for my post. Here, I'll even give you teh link so that you don't forget:

http://www.eventis.ws/showthread.php?t=5624&page=3

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I'm not turning this into Yet Another Capcom Thread. Suffice it to say I was baiting PH by calling communism a religion.

You were trying to bait us by saying there was a paradox. So I took the bait.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Maybe I'm dense. Does "filosfers" = philosopher?
Some philosophers are evil. Take Thomas Hobbes, Nicolo Machiavelli, and Fred Nietsche as examples.

The examples cited make a compelling case for the initial hypothesis.

[lord of the mark]

Opposition to circumcision is a religion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101607.html

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

And if I took provost harrison off the earth and put him in space, he would die.

Let me do it!








just kidding, PH

[Provost Harrison]

Bastard

He didn't capitalise my name

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

And if I took provost harrison off the earth and put him in space, he would die.

Oh, you're just full of hot air there. I don't believe you can do that. Go ahead, if you want me to believe you you're going to have to go right on and go through with it. If you don't I'll never believe you ever again.


I'm waiting.


Well come on now, I haven't got all day. I've got patients to see you know.

[Provost Harrison]

Erm, I'd really rather it if he didn't, please...

[Dr Strangelove]

What? You're still here?

Come on Ben, your reputation is at stake. Either put up or shut up. I want to see PH try on a whole new definition of "getting high".

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Asher

You're clearly not aware of the definition of person.

A person is whatever we define it to be.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Maybe I'm dense. Does "filosfers" = philosopher?
Some philosophers are evil. Take Thomas Hobbes, Nicolo Machiavelli, and Fred Nietsche as examples.

None of those men are remotely "evil."

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


A person is whatever we define it to be.

Yeah. Everyone is expendable until they turn 18....