Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-07-2011, 09:02 AM   #26
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
I did answer your question- Genetics are not used for that determination.

It is the same as asking what differentiates genetic material from any living organism. It is a building block.

It is like asking molecularly, what is the difference between a building and the granite it is made of... well, when you define the scope such that it dictates the answer, you are precluding discussion on the relevant issue.
No, you didn't.

I made a clear statement, which you repudiated, and now can't justify. Answer the question:

What has to be added to a fertilized egg, genetically, to make it a person?

And a building vs granite is a failed parallel due to the fact that that block of granite could easily be made into a counter top, or a paperweight, or whatever. A fertilized egg really only has one or two outcomes. Survival and death. Neither of which affect the fact that genetically, the fertilized egg is a person.

So again, answer the question: Genetically, what's needed to make a fertilized egg a person, in your oh so educated opinion. (Yea, that was a little sarcasm)
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 09:04 AM   #27
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
I would argue that it is possible that a late term baby is not a person,
Wow! Seriously?

And you call yourself a human?
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 09:27 AM   #28
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
No, you didn't.

I made a clear statement, which you repudiated, and now can't justify. Answer the question:

What has to be added to a fertilized egg, genetically, to make it a person?

And a building vs granite is a failed parallel due to the fact that that block of granite could easily be made into a counter top, or a paperweight, or whatever. A fertilized egg really only has one or two outcomes. Survival and death. Neither of which affect the fact that genetically, the fertilized egg is a person.

So again, answer the question: Genetically, what's needed to make a fertilized egg a person, in your oh so educated opinion. (Yea, that was a little sarcasm)
You are ignoring the clear flaw in your question that I called you out on. You are superficially limiting the discussion to lead to a conclusion.

Let's take another example. Genetically, what has to be added to a fertalized chicken egg to make it a chicken? Well, nothing, but an egg is not a chicken.

What genetically has to be added to a strand of my hair to make it a person? Genetically? Nothing, but it's not a person. (and might be able to be made into a person with the cloning process- I dunno)

Leading questions are leading questions, and you have your answer. You just don't like it because I will not fall into your logical fallacy.

Trying to claim no distinction between genetic material of something and a fully developed version of that same thing on a genetic basis is specious argument.

Last edited by Pinkheart; 11-07-2011 at 09:33 AM.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 09:30 AM   #29
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Wow! Seriously?

And you call yourself a human?
Of course, but I could certainly see the argument for not calling a late term baby a person. There are medical complications that can occur... for example, maybe a late term pregnancy includes a semi-formed twin? Perhaps one twin will survive, while the other will not/cannot. Is that a person? I would argue it is not, and in fact is not formed nor capable of survival.

You are trying to make things black and white, where they are not and you are using arbitrary metrics.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 09:33 AM   #30
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
You are ignoring the clear flaw in your question that I called you out on. You are superficially limiting the discussion to lead to a conclusion.

Let's take another example. Genetically, what has to be added to a fertalized chicken egg to make it a chicken? Well, nothing, but an egg is not a chicken.
Sure it is. At least at a genetic level.

What genetically has to be added to a strand of my hair to make it a person? Genetically? Nothing, but it's not a person. (and might be able to be made into a person with the cloning process- I dunno)

Leading questions are leading questions, and you have your answer. You just don't like it because I will not fall into your logical fallacy.
Because you can't answer it. Not a logical fallacy. It's a person and you know it. But keep trying to dehumanize. We all know who you're borrowing THAT tactic from.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 09:35 AM   #31
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
Of course, but I could certainly see the argument for not calling a late term baby a person. There are medical complications that can occur... for example, maybe a late term pregnancy includes a semi-formed twin? Perhaps one twin will survive, while the other will not/cannot. Is that a person? I would argue it is not, and in fact is not formed nor capable of survival.

You are trying to make things black and white, where they are not and you are using arbitrary metrics.
You're trying to base policy on the exceptions. And in the least human way possible to justify your absolute indifference to human life. Your zeal to protect a woman's right to murder her baby is shining through again.

It isn't her property. It's a person. It has it's own human rights. At least at some point it is. And birth is a bullshit answer. Besides, the woman can't claim ownership until she can create it single-handed. And even then, I contend that she can't claim ownership.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 09:39 AM   #32
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Sure it is. At least at a genetic level.
Wrong. At a genetic level it is a [Insert Scientific Name Here] cell. Or, if you prefer- embryo. (depending on state).

Genetic classification is not the same as distinction of development or stage of development.

Because you can't answer it. Not a logical fallacy. It's a person and you know it. But keep trying to dehumanize. We all know who you're borrowing THAT tactic from.
I have said that there is no relevant answer, due to the constraints inherent in the question. I gave counter examples. Two things being genetically identical does not make them the same developmentally.

You are applying an irrelevant measure to leap to a conclusion. Genetic identity is not sufficient base to evaluate recognition of personhood. If that was the case, then every cell in my body is a person.

You are forced to expand your "definition" to potential subsequent events, and that is where the definition fails. It becomes speculative, and is why the debate is not a black and white issue.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 09:45 AM   #33
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
You're trying to base policy on the exceptions. And in the least human way possible to justify your absolute indifference to human life. Your zeal to protect a woman's right to murder her baby is shining through again.
Not true. I have not shown indifference to human life, however I make no qualms about placing quality of life and individual rights above the value of life. Historically, I subscribe to the cry of "Give me liberty or give me death", which demonstrates that life, is not valuable in and of itself, but for what it can provide. I believe that given the choice, people would choose soveriegnity over thier bodies, to a state controlled body, enslaved to the communal goal of producing babies. I believe people have fought for thier individuals rights, and died for them- empirically proving the higher value of rights.

It isn't her property. It's a person. It has it's own human rights. At least at some point it is. And birth is a bullshit answer. Besides, the woman can't claim ownership until she can create it single-handed. And even then, I contend that she can't claim ownership.
We simply disagree on the point at which thise becomes true. Ownership is not relevant to the discussion, as I don't support slavery. However, you are in the hypocritical position of decrying ownership of a baby, but condoning possession of an adult.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2011, 11:01 AM   #34
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Wow! Seriously?

And you call yourself a human?
Not really meaning to pick on you (this time), but this is EXACTLY what Personhood USA is counting on. They want people to go to the polls and vote with their feelings. They've turned this into an abortion issue, where voting no means you like killing babies. They won't want you to think about how this amendment will affect IVF, birth control (did I mention we're number 1 in teenage pregnancies?), miscarriages, not to mention women's rights, they just want you to think about killing babies.

Vote is tomorrow. I'm not optimistic. However, I do find some comfort in believing that, if it won't pass in this state, it won't pass anywhere.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 08:38 AM   #35
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Back in the good ole days, if you weren't a white heterosexual Christian adult male who owned land, you weren't really a person. Oh, someone might have pity on you, and treat you like a person occasionally, but once the government found out about it they'd correct the matter and put you back in your place.

Since those days, it's been a slippery slope towards inclusion. Probably a good thing, but unintended consequences have their way making that slippery slope pretty slippery indeed. Usually hitting bumps along the road such as "Hey, I'm a person, but that there fella/gal/thing over there ain't, and he/she/it might be inconveniencing me, or I want their stuff, or anyways - they just don't count and so what if I killed/abused them - they had it comin' for gettin' in my way" - and the other person (or their mourners) obviously none too happy.

It's one of the dangers of getting the government overly involved in enforcing ethics/morality - almost by definition, they're not going to stop until they've got final say on everything. And while the government's place is in protecting one's life, liberty & pursuit of happiness - the definitions of these things aren't quite as universal as we'd like to pretend. Personally, I think we'd be better off taking more responsibility upon ourselves to treat the outliers better rather than forcing regulation through, but the urge to control other's behaviors seems pretty hardwired in the masses.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3

Last edited by FafnerMorell; 11-08-2011 at 08:46 AM.
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 09:01 AM   #36
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Back in the good ole days, if you weren't a white heterosexual Christian adult male who owned land, you weren't really a person. Oh, someone might have pity on you, and treat you like a person occasionally, but once the government found out about it they'd correct the matter and put you back in your place.

Since those days, it's been a slippery slope towards inclusion. Probably a good thing, but unintended consequences have their way making that slippery slope pretty slippery indeed. Usually hitting bumps along the road such as "Hey, I'm a person, but that there fella/gal/thing over there ain't, and he/she/it might be inconveniencing me, or I want their stuff, or anyways - they just don't count and so what if I killed/abused them - they had it comin' for gettin' in my way" - and the other person (or their mourners) obviously none too happy.

It's one of the dangers of getting the government overly involved in enforcing ethics/morality - almost by definition, they're not going to stop until they've got final say on everything. And while the government's place is in protecting one's life, liberty & pursuit of happiness - the definitions of these things aren't quite as universal as we'd like to pretend. Personally, I think we'd be better off taking more responsibility upon ourselves to treat the outliers better rather than forcing regulation through, but the urge to control other's behaviors seems pretty hardwired in the masses.
No.. if a pregnant woman needs chemo, screw her. Let her die. Sure, she might have other babies... but she has no value and doesn't matter. Only babies matter. MOAR BABIES!

Personally, I can't wait until society makes the decision that embryo rights matter more than rights of people... and that once that is established, we can start enslaving women to baby making factories.
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 09:43 AM   #37
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
No.. if a pregnant woman needs chemo, screw her. Let her die. Sure, she might have other babies... but she has no value and doesn't matter. Only babies matter. MOAR BABIES!

Personally, I can't wait until society makes the decision that embryo rights matter more than rights of people... and that once that is established, we can start enslaving women to baby making factories.
Funny you should use that as an example, since just last month I read a story about a woman who refused chemo treatments to save her unborn child. See, that's how things are supposed to work. She made the decision. The doctors had no say in her decision, the government shouldn't either. If there was a Personhood amendment and she did decide to have the chemo, she could potentially have been charged with manslaughter. On a side note, if fertilized eggs are rendered "Persons", I wonder if the mother could have it evicted for tresspassing?

Personally, I disagreed with her decision. Yes, the child survived, but now has to grow up with no mother. It would never have know if it never was, but now she (I think it was a she anyway) will grow up without a mother's love. However, I'm glad the decision was hers to make.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 09:55 AM   #38
FafnerMorell
Warrior 4 the working-day
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,629
Originally Posted by Pinkheart View Post
No.. if a pregnant woman needs chemo, screw her. Let her die. Sure, she might have other babies... but she has no value and doesn't matter. Only babies matter. MOAR BABIES!

Personally, I can't wait until society makes the decision that embryo rights matter more than rights of people... and that once that is established, we can start enslaving women to baby making factories.
Yep, as I said, the urge to control other's behaviors seems pretty hardwired in the masses.
__________________
Fafner Wabbitslayer, Retired Shaman of Reviction, Erollisi Marr/Morell Thule
"This story shall the good man teach his son;...
From this day to the ending of the world,"
-- William Shakespeare, Henvy V, Act 4, Scene 3
FafnerMorell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 12:16 PM   #39
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by FafnerMorell View Post
Yep, as I said, the urge to control other's behaviors seems pretty hardwired in the masses.
I have no problem aborting a baby if the mother's life is in jeopardy. But this whole "The baby is the property of the woman, and screw anyone else" attitude is utter bullshit.

Here's a clue: Don't want a baby? Quit fucking without protection. There are things like the Norplant that are 99.9999999% effective. Use them.

If you get pregnant anyway? Well, you took your chances. Stop fucking and buy yourself a vibrator.

Murder in the name of convenience is a hollow cop out, and isn't the cure to what's ailing us. We need a cure, not this horrible band aid.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 01:22 PM   #40
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
I have no problem aborting a baby if the mother's life is in jeopardy. But this whole "The baby is the property of the woman, and screw anyone else" attitude is utter bullshit.
Then you fucking raise it.
Originally Posted by Drysdale
Here's a clue: Don't want a baby? Quit fucking without protection. There are things like the Norplant that are 99.9999999% effective. Use them.
Yeah, and not all birth control is suitable for all people. If Personhood passes, any birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, i.e. IUD, would most likely be illegal. That's post-feritilzation, pre-conception.
Originally Posted by Drysdale
If you get pregnant anyway? Well, you took your chances. Stop fucking and buy yourself a vibrator.
Yeah, all those kids whose parents didn't teach them about sex should be forced to carry those babies to term!
Originally Posted by Drysdale
Murder in the name of convenience is a hollow cop out, and isn't the cure to what's ailing us. We need a cure, not this horrible band aid.
Murder? Thanks, Captain Hyperbole, but it's not murder. Murder is illegal. Since only about 20% of fertilized eggs make it through to birth, God has a lot of 'splaining to do. Why would he create a "person" if only 1 out of 5 makes it?
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 03:55 PM   #41
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Wildane View Post
Then you fucking raise it.Yeah, and not all birth control is suitable for all people. If Personhood passes, any birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, i.e. IUD, would most likely be illegal.
Where does anything written give you that idea? Or are you just pulling bullshit outta your ass? Hmm... I think I already know the answer to that one.

That's post-feritilzation, pre-conception.Yeah, all those kids whose parents didn't teach them about sex should be forced to carry those babies to term! Murder? Thanks, Captain Hyperbole, but it's not murder. Murder is illegal.
Ahh... so the Nazi extermination of a couple million Jews wasn't murder because it was legal? Do you seriously want to back that statement up?

Since only about 20% of fertilized eggs make it through to birth, God has a lot of 'splaining to do. Why would he create a "person" if only 1 out of 5 makes it?
Dumb points, esp. the last one. You're basically stating that you're as knowledgeable as God, and that you're smart enough to be able to decide who lives or dies. That's hubris to the Nth degree. That's also like saying that an accidental death is the equivalent to murder. It isn't. You really need to bone up on your definitions of what is and isn't murder.
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 04:07 PM   #42
Michael Cumberlan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 617
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
Where does anything written give you that idea? Or are you just pulling bullshit outta your ass? Hmm... I think I already know the answer to that one.
Interestingly enough, serious debate around the lax language of the law as written and whether these things could potentially be seen as illegal (in vitro, day after pill, etc.) is already on record with this issue.

http://debatesthatmatter.blogspot.co...ill-could.html
Michael Cumberlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 08:04 PM   #43
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
You're welcome, Mississippi.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 08:26 PM   #44
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Drysdale
Where does anything written give you that idea? Or are you just pulling bullshit outta your ass? Hmm... I think I already know the answer to that one.
Use you're fucking brain. If a fertilized egg is considered a person, any birth control method or IVF treatment that kills fertilized eggs would be criminalized, because "people" were being killed. I've been reading letter after letter from doctors and lawyers for weeks now. I believe I have a handle on the implications of what would happen if this fucking garbage legislation had passed. In other words, I know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Originally Posted by Drysdale
Ahh... so the Nazi extermination of a couple million Jews wasn't murder because it was legal? Do you seriously want to back that statement up?
Yeah, that's the most absurd analogy I've ever heard, and not because you've invoked Godwin's Law (that makes it even more absurd). I would attempt a rational explanation of exactly how you've jumped the shark, but anyone who who throws around vagina-driven, emotion-evoking, in other words, purposefully misleading language like "murder" to describe abortion, is not interested in rational dialogue. I would explain it to everyone else, but they already know.
Originally Posted by Drysdale
Dumb points, esp. the last one. You're basically stating that you're as knowledgeable as God, and that you're smart enough to be able to decide who lives or dies. That's hubris to the Nth degree. That's also like saying that an accidental death is the equivalent to murder. It isn't. You really need to bone up on your definitions of what is and isn't murder.
No, I'm saying that HE knows who's going to live and who's going to die, so he knows which of the fertilized eggs won't make it. If there is a God, he designed it to work that way. So, why would God consider that egg to be a person if he knows it's just going to die. To serve absolutely no function. That's pretty wasteful on his part, but if those fertilized eggs were considered "persons" in his eyes, then he's killed 80% of the entire human race before they're born, and for no apparent reason. Your God is insane.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2011, 09:08 PM   #45
Misty
Do Not Disturb
 
Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,075
Originally Posted by Wildane post #37
"On a side note, if fertilized eggs are rendered "Persons", I wonder if the mother could have it evicted for trespassing?"
Damn straight, you just stated the Reductio ad Absurdum. Of course the mother can, she's a person with the same rights same as that ova/gamete/zygote/foetus unlawfully trespassing inside her without her agreement. And she can vote.
Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 04:38 AM   #46
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Well, while that comment was made tongue-in-cheek, that's how open-ended that legislation was.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 09:53 AM   #47
Pinkheart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,913
Well..I wonder if a man can sue/petition for full custody of the egg?

It's a person.. he's a parent... why not?
Pinkheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 09:59 PM   #48
Shylodog
Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 1,378
Send a message via Yahoo to Shylodog
FFS.... Here we go again...

It's a complete waste of time and money to pursue this in a state where prostitution is legal...

LINK HERE
__________________
Shylodog Wamphyri
66 Arch Convoker
(Retired)

Originally Posted by Hormadrune
Write it down- Chuk made me lolirl
Originally Posted by Drysdale
To bumbleroot: Know what? You're right. I DID misread your statement and I DO apologize.
Shylodog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 05:45 AM   #49
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Shylodog View Post
FFS.... Here we go again...

It's a complete waste of time and money to pursue this in a state where prostitution is legal...

LINK HERE
It's a complete waste of time anywhere. It failed in Colorado twice and it failed in one of the most bible-thumping states (MS), so you really have to wonder if they're really that stupid or if their level of denial has reached Olympian proportions. I do not envy you the turmoil this will create. Pro-lifers are about to get real goddamn annoying.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 04:48 PM   #50
Shylodog
Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 1,378
Send a message via Yahoo to Shylodog
Originally Posted by Wildane View Post
It's a complete waste of time anywhere. It failed in Colorado twice and it failed in one of the most bible-thumping states (MS), so you really have to wonder if they're really that stupid or if their level of denial has reached Olympian proportions. I do not envy you the turmoil this will create. Pro-lifers are about to get real goddamn annoying.
New info coming out, but to me time has already been wasted on this.

LINK

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - A state judge says an initiative petition seeking to define a person and outlaw abortion is vague and cannot be circulated for signatures to qualify for the 2012 ballot.

District Judge James Wilson in Carson City ruled from the bench Wednesday against Personhood Nevada after an hour-long hearing. The group's proposed initiative sought to add seven words to the Nevada Constitution, defining the word "person" to include "every human being."

Wilson agreed with opponents, including the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, in ruling that the measure was vague and did not specify to voters the scope of the measure and what it would do.

Earlier this week, Wilson gave another group, Nevada Prolife Coalition, approval to collect signatures on a similar measure, but rewrote its description to better explain its effects.
__________________
Shylodog Wamphyri
66 Arch Convoker
(Retired)

Originally Posted by Hormadrune
Write it down- Chuk made me lolirl
Originally Posted by Drysdale
To bumbleroot: Know what? You're right. I DID misread your statement and I DO apologize.
Shylodog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:11 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.