It would be like dropping off a grown adult in the middle of the Sahara desert with nothing but the clothes on his back and telling him to survive.
Would liberals trade guns for human lives?
- Thread starter Bob the Citronaut
- Start date
It would be like dropping off a grown adult in the middle of the Sahara desert with nothing but the clothes on his back and telling him to survive.
Actually, it would be worse than that. It would be like doing that to a quadriplegic albino falcon.
The world is not always black and white. There are often multiple shades of grey. Try living your life without so many conditions and you'll be much happier. Only idiots need everything to be absolute.
Agreed. It was a simple analogy addressing your statement "it does not 100% prevent it from happening". If it isn't 100%, it's as close as you can get.
you're diverting and sensationalizing to avoid your deficiency. select one and we can address
okay let's rephrase: are you ignorant of your misconception or are you being belligerent in continuing to assert a fallacious position?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but you're not refuting the argument. You're simply trying to attack the source by name calling, which usually means you cannot refute the argument or you don't want to. Either way, you've lost.
the source of your deficiency is important in order to effectively address the argument
you need to own up to your issues so that we can constructively rehabilitate you
You guys have gotten off topic. We need to know if liberals would trade 700,000 murders a year for 8,200.
That's good to know for when I want to bury someone 6 feet underground in a box equipped only with a large spoon.
That probably adds false imprisonment to the charges at least and is a different shade of grey towards murder/manslaughter as well. At least in the desert scenario, the victim has not lost the ability to move freely, nor been left in a situation with a finite amount of breathable air.
Who doesn't go to Machine Gun American on 192 at least once a month?
http://www.machinegunamerica.com/
http://www.machinegunamerica.com/
I already said they have a spoon. It's moving freely but slowly. I will add a tube to the surface for a source of oxygen.
anon_x731qvsnsyb8i
Diamond Knight
Half the genetic code for a baby is extinguished by every woman every month. Murderers they are.
Hey, I heard cells are living too...even those that carry genetic information for our procreation have a life-span...the real question is, are they self-aware?? "Life" is being able to quantify an environment and separate one's-self from it. Pretty sure that's factual and is what separates bacterium, virus's and single-celled organisms from other complex forms fauna and flora...
Amoebas are alive, whether or not they are cognizant of their surroundings before consuming random plankton is still up for debate...same can be said for zygotes.
Hey, I heard cells are living too...even those that carry genetic information for our procreation have a life-span...the real question is, are they self-aware?? "Life" is being able to quantify an environment and separate one's-self from it. Pretty sure that's factual and is what separates bacterium, virus's and single-celled organisms from other complex forms fauna and flora...
Amoebas are alive, whether or not they are cognizant of their surroundings before consuming random plankton is still up for debate...same can be said for zygotes.
First, the ovum is not fertilized.
Second, you're comparing a damned bacterium, virus and single celled organism to a zygote? That would be disingenuous at best. The zygote is simply the very beginning of life for a complex organism and is not the "end state" whereas this is not true for a single celled organism. C'mon Knightman.
anon_x731qvsnsyb8i
Diamond Knight
I'm just trying to figure out where the arbitrary fertilization = life ethical premise originates, or the number of cells required for being self-aware, come on Fab. I need more than "because it is so" as a reason.
My problem with both sides of the debate is that they operate in absolutes. One believes you are alive at conception, the other? At birth...technically. Both arguments, in reality, are false and do not take into account actual biology.
A zygote that is not self-aware is no different than a brain-dead human that is not self-aware. The only difference is the point after fertilization..at what point does this "self-awareness" occur which quantifies life? For the record, I'm against abortions after the first trimester unless the fetus is morbidly malformed. People should figure that shit out before the 3rd month...I partially agree in some arbortion limits simply based on the fact that I do think all life is precious...especially given that I am non-theist and don't believe in after-lifes. I believe a 4 month old embryo sucking its thumb is very much alive. It's asinine to think otherwise. I think the argument "when you are born" is also naive and stupid. So let's figure out that point of self-awareness.
Last edited:
The problem both the left and right have is that the 2nd Amendment and Roe v. Wade are "Supreme Laws/Rulings."
So instead of getting a supermajority of Americans to agree, and overturn either, they play games like ...
The US courts also have a lot to say about that. In other words, an American state is not allowed to pass a law when it knowingly makes Americans criminals and they will choose to be criminals. It's one of the things that goes back to the British, and where most of our legal differences are, why prohibition failed, etc...
So far ... the courts have sided with freedom. In fact, in cases where states like New York tried to hide -- for 2 years -- the fact that 95% of firearm owners decided to become criminals under the new law, the New York Supreme Court lambasted the state for hiding such information.
As a freedom loving, civic-minded Libertarian, I'm honestly getting tired of Americans not realizing what the left-right rhetoric is resulting in.
So instead of getting a supermajority of Americans to agree, and overturn either, they play games like ...
- Waiting periods
- Registration lists and tracking what people do
- Redefining things so it's difficult to exercise the right
- Hiding real statistics
- Etc...
- Ex-post-facto ... turning something that was previous legal, and exercised, into something illegal, after-the-fact
The US courts also have a lot to say about that. In other words, an American state is not allowed to pass a law when it knowingly makes Americans criminals and they will choose to be criminals. It's one of the things that goes back to the British, and where most of our legal differences are, why prohibition failed, etc...
So far ... the courts have sided with freedom. In fact, in cases where states like New York tried to hide -- for 2 years -- the fact that 95% of firearm owners decided to become criminals under the new law, the New York Supreme Court lambasted the state for hiding such information.
As a freedom loving, civic-minded Libertarian, I'm honestly getting tired of Americans not realizing what the left-right rhetoric is resulting in.
Being alive, i.e. a living orgranism/metabolic process, as opposed to being lifeless and inanimate is the basic definition of life. Why does it have to be based on "self-awareness"? Self-awareness simply provides ammunition to the pro-lifers by providing a rationalization by raising the bar on the definition of "life". In my opinion "self-awareness" it is better defined in complex organism as being a stage in a developmental process so wouldn't it be better to look at it it that "life" begins at the onset of the developmental process for without the the onset of this process there would be no self-sustaining organism.
A simplification of this process would be a chicken egg. Without the fertilization process there is no hatching of a self sustaining organism so if I eat an unfertilized chicken egg then I didn't terminate a process, the chicken egg was it's end state and there was never potential for a self sustaining organism. However, if the egg was fertilized and I ate it, I terminated a process that would have ultimately resulted in a self sustaining organism.
Knightman a zygote is, more likely than not, going to become a self-aware life without further intervention, unless the pregnancy is terminated. That is why life begins at conception.
Your entire premise ignores the basic necessity for protection-from-self law. Just because people are going to do something anyway doesn't make it necessarily legal. Just because something isn't easily enforceable doesn't make it necessarily legal. Unfortunately much of regressive America, including the judicial system, has often decided to forget this in the name of societal marginalization.
When people are ignorant of 97% of what both the NRA and Planned Parenthood do, their history, how they came to be, and why they exist, it's difficult to get either the left and right, respectively, to stop and not knee jerk to the mention of their names.
Well, maybe. Only if that zygote attaches to a uterine wall and is adequately fed by the mother through the uterus, have that zygote develop into a healthy fetus, have that fetus survive birth, and have the resulting baby develop normally will result in it developing into a self-aware being. And that attachment (and of course everything else that goes with child-bearing) is not guaranteed, and in some women isn't even likely with or without birth control. Even then, it is possible for the mother's body to slough the uterine lining and the zygote with it due to a hormonal imbalance in the mother (or other conditions). Saying life begins at conception is failing to understand that not all conceptions result in live births, even naturally. It's not automatic. All conception is is the combination of two people's DNA into a single cell. Somewhere between that event and around age 1 (post-birth), that entity becomes self-aware.
The big difference, since we are talking about natural biological process, is that the termination of the process on one hand is biologically induced, vice on the other hand, it is artificially induced.
Latest posts
-
JUST STOP !!! ENOUGH is ENOUGH. UCF ALUMS PLS READ since there are no moderators- Latest: Willie Knightime
-
-
