Gosnell case

[racrguy]

I believe he is referring to this:

vi·a·ble [ v əb'l ]
practicable or worthwhile: able to be done or worth doing
able to grow: able to germinate or develop normally
able to survive outside womb: describes a fetus that can survive outside the womb

Way to NOT choose the correct definition for the conversation..

[Forever_frost]

As sperm was mentioned and not the child, that is the applicable definition. Did you not say sperm?

One second:

What is this, the catholic fucking church? Every sperm is not sacred.

Yep you did

[slow06]

As sperm was mentioned and not the child, that is the applicable definition. Did you not say sperm?

One second:



Yep you did

He clearly means when the fetus is viable, since you don't abort sperm.

Feel free to disagree with his opinion, personally I do, but it is not entirely unreasonable to say life begins when a fetus is able to live outside of the womb.

The bottom line is we have to define when life begins. If you ask me I would say at the first heartbeat. Legislate from there. I would encourage personal responsibility that goes farther, including abortion not ever being an option, but that is just me. I won't let the government define my moral standard, be it more or less strict on any given subject (although I will obey the law).

[Forever_frost]

When doctors tell me that a fetus that can kick, turn, react to light, has a heartbeat, and so forth isn't alive, then I'll agree with you. If I shoot a pregnant woman and kill her and her fetus I get charged with two counts not one. Can't have the cake and eat it too.

As much as abortion sickens me, I see no authority of the federal government in abortion however if these statists want government involved, then suck it up, it's involved.

[slow06]

When doctors tell me that a fetus that can kick, turn, react to light, has a heartbeat, and so forth isn't alive, then I'll agree with you. If I shoot a pregnant woman and kill her and her fetus I get charged with two counts not one. Can't have the cake and eat it too.

As much as abortion sickens me, I see no authority of the federal government in abortion however if these statists want government involved, then suck it up, it's involved.

Agreed. It is either alive or not. You can't call it murder on one hand and not the other.

[Forever_frost]

No idea how this is even a debate. If I can be charged with murdering it, it's alive. Pretty simple

[racrguy]

No idea how this is even a debate. If I can be charged with murdering it, it's alive. Pretty simple

False. As has been explained to you before. Why do you guys not come up with better arguments when it's so easy to make you look like fools? Do you think if you say the same bullshit enough times it'll somehow become true?

[Forever_frost]

Not false. I can't murder something that isn't alive, right? If I can, elaborate as murder kind of requires something to be alive first.

[racrguy]

Not false. I can't murder something that isn't alive, right? If I can, elaborate as murder kind of requires something to be alive first.

Answer me something first. If I explain these concepts to you yet again will you shut up about it?

[exlude]

I agree FF, laws are known to be consistent.

[Forever_frost]

If you can explain how I can kill something not alive, then I will concede the point.

[exlude]

Because the law says you can Frost, that's really all there is to it. Trying to wax philosophic over it doesn't really present much.

[Forever_frost]

At one point, the law also said you could own another person and current law states that you can be rounded up into cattle cars and put into a camp, forfeiting all your property without due process or compensation. A law does not equal right

And yes, internment is still 100% legal.

[exlude]

I think you missed my point. Or you just continued past it.

[racrguy]

If you can explain how I can kill something not alive, then I will concede the point.

Edit: aaaah fuck it. It's not worth it. You're just going to hand waive it anyway.