In your moral relativist world death being meaningless is a legitimate position
still waiting for any indication that your own definition of that "one true morality" isn't as relativist a view as any other...only thing is, you don't seem to be able to provide any definition of what this "one true morality" even is.
And the individual's right not be butchered in the womb by his or hers mother is the greater good. Death over inconvenience. It should be a no brainer.
That is your opinion. The pleasure may outweigh the pain and you have nothing to prove otherwise.
it also depends on many other factors besides their deaths. it's a very complicated theory and I am not educated enough in its finer points to answer all available questions and hypothetical situations
they aren't separate. Yes they are. definition: to see the differences between; distinguish or discrimnate between. or to keep apart by being between. All of the things Dan pointed establish that the mother and the unborn child are seperate beings.
Amniotic Fluid: This protective liquid, consisting mostly of water, fills in the sac surrounding the fetus. Amniotic fluid is a colorless liquid that surrounds and protects the baby inside the amniotic sac within the uterus.
Amniotic Fluid: This protective liquid, consisting mostly of water, fills in the sac surrounding the fetus. Amniotic fluid is a colorless liquid that surrounds and protects the baby inside the amniotic sac within the uterus. When the amniotic sac ruptures, this may be referred to as your "water breaking."
Killing one million utilitarian may bring pleasure to ten million non-utilitarians.
true, but it doesn't outweght the pain associated with those 1 million killings
Don't be trying to impose your morailty on me.
I'm not, how you inferred that is beyond any sane person's scope fo reason.
Death? So what it is meaningless.
this defeats your reward/life after death argument
One thing you're missing: Individual rights is the greater good.
when I say greater, I mean common good
Killing one million utilitarian may bring pleasure to ten million non-utilitarians.
true, but it doesn't outweght the pain associated with those 1 million killings
That is your opinion. The pleasure may outweigh the pain and you have nothing to prove otherwise.
Death? So what it is meaningless.
this defeats your reward/life after death argument
In your moral relativist world death being meaningless is a legitimate position. I was simply pointing out how absurd your views are.
exactly
still waiting for any indication that your own definition of that "one true morality" isn't as relativist a view as any other...only thing is, you don't seem to be able to provide any definition of what this "one true morality" even is.
Individual rights is the greater good.
And the individual's right not be butchered in the womb by his or hers mother is the greater good. Death over inconvenience. It should be a no brainer.
crabs, the "one true morailty" does not need to be defined. It exists beyond your ability to understand.
a fetus isn't an individual until it's born...a mother is.
it's beyond YOUR ability to understand it, which is why you keep failing to define it.
That is your opinion. The pleasure may outweigh the pain and you have nothing to prove otherwise.
it also depends on many other factors besides their deaths. it's a very complicated theory and I am not educated enough in its finer points to answer all available questions and hypothetical situations
a fetus isn't an individual until it's born...a mother is.
Yes it is. Your viewpoint shows just how morally depraved you are.
no, it's not.
it's identity is entirely with the mother.
it's not a question of morality.
it' simply not an individual until it's been BORN.
the act of birth imparts "individual" status, not the act of conception.
still waiting for any evidence that you know what that "one true morality" even is.
it' simply not an individual until it's been BORN.
the act of birth imparts "individual" status, not the act of conception.
exactly
That is all that it is.
the act of birth imparts "individual" status, not the act of conception.
exactly
Unborn children are separate and identifiable human beings. Your denying the truth does not change that.
Unborn children are separate and identifiable human beings.
depending on what stage in the pregnancy
At any stage.
they aren't separate.
they belong to the mother entirely.
they aren't separate. Yes they are. definition: to see the differences between; distinguish or discrimnate between. or to keep apart by being between. All of the things Dan pointed establish that the mother and the unborn child are seperate beings.
so, what is between a fetus and it's mother? The thing that keeps them apart by placing something between them is called "BIRTH"
my hands and my ears are both distinguishable from my torso, the differences are obvious, and yet these things are all completely a part of me.
so, what is between a fetus and it's mother?
Does this make it clear for you?
and just who's amniotic fluid is it?
hint: rhymes with "other"
Since it is in the sac, which clearly seperates the mother and the child, I would say it is the baby's.
no, it's the mother's fluid.
it's the mother's fetus.
it's the mother's.
does the fluid separate the cord?
keep falling back on that lie. but it has no basis.
my eyeballs are "separated" from my eye sockets in much the same way.
they are still entirely my eyes.
the are attached but separate, crabs. I know you can't deal with it being a morally depraved soul.
my eyeballs are "separated" from my eye sockets in much the same way.
Are they the same eye?
I haven't lied.
and you haven't shown any lack of basis in what I've said.
I have two of them...they are both entirely mine.
true, but it doesn't outweght the pain associated with those 1 million killings
Says who? You?
You have 10,000,000 happy people versus 1,000,000 unhappy (Actually unfeeling) people.
You do the math.
To me it sounds like a great return on equity.
and you haven't shown any lack of basis in what I've said
I don't need to show anything. what you said obviously has no basis.
it's so obvious that you can't even state why?
yea...sure it is.
the child is a separate human being that is all that needs to be said.
it's entirely the mother's, that's all that needs to be said.
it's entirely the mother's, that's all that needs to be said.
5:06 PM - "Fetus"
5:07 PM - "Crabby"
5:06: mother's
5:07: self's
it's called "BIRTH"
That's just insanity.
crabs is morally depraved. Nuff said.
no, that's nature.
crabs is morally depraved.
I didn't think so until he said it was ok to "Abort" a "Fetus" after birth, as long as the cord hadn't been cut.
Now I'm not so sure.
Birth:
the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent
"new individual"
not "a nine month old" individual.
it's NEW,because it's individuality was granted it by it's birth.
of which it had previously been a part of.
Do you really believe that nonsense?
5:19 - "Fetus"
5:20 - "Individual"
Like it didn't exist as an individual 1 minute ago?
it didn't exist as an individualuntil it's mother gave BIRTH to it.
only now is it a NEWindividual, as you yourself just defined it.
It was still an individual, it just hadn't exited the womb.
Nothing changed, other than exiting the womb.
so, your definition of a NEWindividual is flawed?
it's wasn't an individual, it was entirely it's mother's.
it didn't become an (NEW) individual until it's mother gave birth to it and made it a NEW INDIVIDUAL
Goodnight Gracie
NEW
Well, I guess I have to disagree.
I don't see much difference between "Fetus" @ 5:54 PM, & "Baby" @ 5:55 PM.
Except that it's no longer in the womb.
It's still got the same limbs, the same brain, the same blood....