The "mystical" experience of an OBE is not necessarily induced by physical means. Most methods involve some form of mental exercise, and the will to do it. Also, what is a fetus residing in a human female whose presence there was caused by the female,s copulation with a male? It sure as heck ain't a bear. Considering the seriousness of murdering a human being, the burden of proof that a fetus is not a human should rest on the ones that want to kill it. If I'm wrong, then someone will have a baby and it will be an inconvenience. If I'm right, then someone will have killed an innocent, sentient, helpless life form that never did them any harm and didn't ask to be conceived in the first place.
Allow me to clarify, since you aren't paying attention. The implication that just denying women the right to kill unborn children is like hopping in a bloody time machine and going back to the 1800's is ridiculous. That is only one of many, many things that have changed since the 1800's, and is one thing that shouldn't have. But I would like to have cleaner air. What was put forth was a straw man (an erroneous "restatement" of an opponent's position that, since it is erroneous and goes far beyond what the opponent actually said or meant, is easily attacked, as a straw man would be). Example: If I say that french fries shouldn't be called french fries because they aren't really french, and you respond by saying, "Well perhaps people should never use the word French to refer to any foods at all, mister smarty pants!". You have then overstated my position, and extended it to the point that this new position you try to claim is mine is obviously ridiculous and easily attacked.
The phenomenon is common among Hollywood "do-gooders". You should avoid stereotyping people based on one position they hold. I am anti-abortion, and yet did not vote for Bush and don't like him at all. I am also far from ignorant. What makes you human is not your brain, but your soul. The brain is just the place where the soul meets the physical. Try inducing an out-of-body experience for yourself sometime, and you will see that the brain is not the mind. Also, this whole "the proper stance is inbetween" is also known as the argument of the middle. In our logic class in college, it was known as an informal fallacy. If asked which side of the road to walk on, the left or right, would you answer the middle? Of course not. The proper stance is not to kill defenseless human beings.
Yes, but the analogy still fails because Mexico was never an accepted United State. Building the wall is not going to keep any U.S. citizens from accessing any part of the U.S. DuuuHHH!
I never actually put forth a simile. I was just responding to someone else's false analogy. I am glad someone agrees that what is happening on our southern border is an invasion.
There you go trying to put everyone into one category again! I am pro-life, I voted for Badnarik, not Bush, and I am against the Iraq war and most other foreign wars. Those of us who think for ourselves aren't that easy to categorize. Also, I am a meat-eater. And I voted for Badnarik in spite of what he professed to believe about abortion. Maybe just saying you're pro-life doesn't define anything else about you other than that you are pro-life.
Not if I was forced to be in it by someone else. The child doesn't choose to be conceived, and shouldn't be punished for the actions of the mother and father.
This one: Anti-abortion laws were from a time when women were disenfranchised. They had zero control over their bodies, and prectically none over their own lives. For all intents and purposes, they were property of their husbands. This has changed. Welcome to the 21st Century. You expect women to go backwards in time? Not gonna happen.
This ridiculous statement is akin to the statement that, since there was cleaner air and slavery in this country in 1860, that anyone wishing for cleaner air wants to go back in time and have cleaner air and slavery. Some things that have been lost shouldn't have been, while some aren't worthy of regaining.
Of course it isn't part of a woman's body. Every part(bit of tissue) of the woman's body has her unique dna and no other in it. The fetus doesn't meet that requirement. It has it's own dna, thus it is a separate but attached being. If I go into outer space in a rocket, I am not part of the rocket even though I need it's environment to survive there.
Actually the government is supposed to have the right to tell someone what to do with their body only when the actions they take with their body will influence someone else negatively and directly. An example would be if one person killed another, even if the other person is just starting life. Perhaps some of the pro choice people would like to argue that, since newborns don't actually have much personality yet, or much of a soul, it is alright to kill them too. Perhaps I would then argue that, since idiots like them never had an original thought in their heads, they aren't really "people" but merely biological recording/playback devices for people's ideas and that, since they aren't "people", they can be put to death if they inconvenience or annoy me(and they do annoy).
Once the sperm joins with the egg, it is no longer just her body, since the sperm wasn't hers to begin with, and the joining of the two creates a new thing which is neither of its predecessors. I am always amazed at how many people who don't want innocent cows killed so humans can eat them are perfectly willing to let an innocent fetus be killed because someone finds it inconvenient. Selective compassion is great, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
The "mystical" experience of an OBE is not necessarily induced by physical means. Most methods involve some form of mental exercise, and the will to do it. Also, what is a fetus residing in a human female whose presence there was caused by the female,s copulation with a male? It sure as heck ain't a bear. Considering the seriousness of murdering a human being, the burden of proof that a fetus is not a human should rest on the ones that want to kill it. If I'm wrong, then someone will have a baby and it will be an inconvenience. If I'm right, then someone will have killed an innocent, sentient, helpless life form that never did them any harm and didn't ask to be conceived in the first place.
Look at the statement immediately preceding the one you quoted, and it is obvious I am talking about a woman's ability to get an abortion legally.
Allow me to clarify, since you aren't paying attention. The implication that just denying women the right to kill unborn children is like hopping in a bloody time machine and going back to the 1800's is ridiculous. That is only one of many, many things that have changed since the 1800's, and is one thing that shouldn't have. But I would like to have cleaner air. What was put forth was a straw man (an erroneous "restatement" of an opponent's position that, since it is erroneous and goes far beyond what the opponent actually said or meant, is easily attacked, as a straw man would be). Example: If I say that french fries shouldn't be called french fries because they aren't really french, and you respond by saying, "Well perhaps people should never use the word French to refer to any foods at all, mister smarty pants!". You have then overstated my position, and extended it to the point that this new position you try to claim is mine is obviously ridiculous and easily attacked.
The phenomenon is common among Hollywood "do-gooders". You should avoid stereotyping people based on one position they hold. I am anti-abortion, and yet did not vote for Bush and don't like him at all. I am also far from ignorant. What makes you human is not your brain, but your soul. The brain is just the place where the soul meets the physical. Try inducing an out-of-body experience for yourself sometime, and you will see that the brain is not the mind. Also, this whole "the proper stance is inbetween" is also known as the argument of the middle. In our logic class in college, it was known as an informal fallacy. If asked which side of the road to walk on, the left or right, would you answer the middle? Of course not. The proper stance is not to kill defenseless human beings.
Yes, but the analogy still fails because Mexico was never an accepted United State. Building the wall is not going to keep any U.S. citizens from accessing any part of the U.S. DuuuHHH!
I never actually put forth a simile. I was just responding to someone else's false analogy. I am glad someone agrees that what is happening on our southern border is an invasion.
There you go trying to put everyone into one category again! I am pro-life, I voted for Badnarik, not Bush, and I am against the Iraq war and most other foreign wars. Those of us who think for ourselves aren't that easy to categorize. Also, I am a meat-eater. And I voted for Badnarik in spite of what he professed to believe about abortion. Maybe just saying you're pro-life doesn't define anything else about you other than that you are pro-life.
Not if I was forced to be in it by someone else. The child doesn't choose to be conceived, and shouldn't be punished for the actions of the mother and father.
This one: Anti-abortion laws were from a time when women were disenfranchised. They had zero control over their bodies, and prectically none over their own lives. For all intents and purposes, they were property of their husbands. This has changed. Welcome to the 21st Century. You expect women to go backwards in time? Not gonna happen.
This ridiculous statement is akin to the statement that, since there was cleaner air and slavery in this country in 1860, that anyone wishing for cleaner air wants to go back in time and have cleaner air and slavery. Some things that have been lost shouldn't have been, while some aren't worthy of regaining.
Of course it isn't part of a woman's body. Every part(bit of tissue) of the woman's body has her unique dna and no other in it. The fetus doesn't meet that requirement. It has it's own dna, thus it is a separate but attached being. If I go into outer space in a rocket, I am not part of the rocket even though I need it's environment to survive there.
Actually the government is supposed to have the right to tell someone what to do with their body only when the actions they take with their body will influence someone else negatively and directly. An example would be if one person killed another, even if the other person is just starting life. Perhaps some of the pro choice people would like to argue that, since newborns don't actually have much personality yet, or much of a soul, it is alright to kill them too. Perhaps I would then argue that, since idiots like them never had an original thought in their heads, they aren't really "people" but merely biological recording/playback devices for people's ideas and that, since they aren't "people", they can be put to death if they inconvenience or annoy me(and they do annoy).
Once the sperm joins with the egg, it is no longer just her body, since the sperm wasn't hers to begin with, and the joining of the two creates a new thing which is neither of its predecessors. I am always amazed at how many people who don't want innocent cows killed so humans can eat them are perfectly willing to let an innocent fetus be killed because someone finds it inconvenient. Selective compassion is great, isn't it?
Newsflash, the Germans put up a wall between east and west parts of an originally united country. Mexico is not and never was part of the U.S.A.