First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Pregnant Mother’s are Hermaphrodites
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09
I think it’s time to do a review, because we’re circling back around. If a fetus is less morally significant because its level of development then it follows that our level of development determines our moral value. That’s the embodiment of the argument. The fetus is less developed; therefore, it’s inferior.

I am willing to accept this premise simply because it’s a moral question and it’s impossible to debate religious concepts like this. However, if this is true then a teenager is more morally significant than a pre-teen. After all, teenagers are more developed than pre-teens and it’s our level of development that determines our moral significant. Similarly, an adult is more important than a teenager and a five year old is more important than a three year old. Thus, it would be worse to kill an adult than to kill a three year old.

If a fetus is less morally significant because its level of consciousness, sentience, or cognition then it follows that our level of consciousness sentience, or cognition that determines our moral value. In this case I’m less morally significant when I sleep, and your mother’s less morally significant if I drug her.

So, if you accept these there’s nothing logically wrong with your premise. However, if accept the premise but not the conclusion that’s illogical and either the conclusion and you, or the premise and you, are incorrect.


A zygote is technically human, and that is because of its DNA. The DNA is that of the species homo sapien. But wait, a skin cell also has the DNA of the species homo sapien, they are human as well. But individual skin cells do not each deserve the same rights as we do. What about it specifically being a 'human being', by 'being' most people mean it is unique from it's parents (the DNA).


Now we’re going into a deeper field of science. There’s a certain species of fish that is actually able to change its genetic signature and become another type of fish allowing it to survive in different types of water. However, it’s not considered to belong to two species of fish because only one genetic signature is active at a time. Its current species is determined by its active genetics. Similarly, a skin cell does have the signature but only the genetic instructions specialized for skin functioning is active. So it’s not classified as a scientific human by the scientific community, whereas a fetus is.


What about it specifically being a 'human being', by 'being' most people mean it is unique from it's parents (the DNA). Ok, so by that criteria, a skin cell and all other cells in the body are not human beings because they all have the same DNA, but a zygote is unique because it has new DNA. And by the same criteria, a petri dish filled with living human cells from someone's cancerous tumor is also just a huge group of human beings. Each cancer cell is human, it's DNA makes it part of the species homo sapien, and it's DNA is different from its parents, therefore each cancer cell could be considered a human being. But each individual cancer cell does not deserve the same rights that you and I have.

Actually, cancer is caused by a mutation of the cells. That’s why the cells in question are unique while the skin cells are not. But, they’re also different. Either way the same argument above applies. They’re not scientifically classified as human beings because human beings are, like every other species of plant and animal, defined by a replicating and active genetic signature.

But I don’t think either one of us is qualified to really make these calls. Just because we’re political thinkers considering the topic doesn’t mean we know more about the subject than the professionals. Now, if only we can could get all of the actually scientists together and have them discuss the topic. Well, the United States Senate Subcommittee already did that.

Although invited to do so, pro-abortions could not produce a single expert witness to testify that human life begins at any time other than conceptions (though one admitted that he wasn’t sure,) and concluded:


“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”

- Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.

[spoilers] Some quotes from the testimonies at the hearing:
Dr. Landrum Shettles served for nearly thirty years as an attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. He is best known for his discovery of female producing sperm. Dr. Shettles also stated:


"...I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception."


Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, is most famous for discovering the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. Jerome Lejune testified before the Judiciary Subcommittee:


“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."


Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:


“By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”


Ashley Montague, pro-choice geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers:


"The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception."


http://religiousgenocide.blogspot.com/2009/04/abortion-iii-scientific-status-of-fetus.html

So you see this isn’t so much a scientific argument as it is a political one. The scientific community already knows that a fetus classifies as a living human being while a skin cell does not. There’s no room to question the scientific premise. It’s not a debatable topic. It’s like global warming, only politically is it questioned. Scientifically fact is fact. It’s black and it’s white. Science isn’t like philosophy or morality, debatable in all forms, full of grey shades and strange colors. It’s cold, clinical, and final.


I think you made a topic related to this a long time ago about how if we gave animals or inanimate objects human traits, like in movies, we suddenly can empathize with them and give them more moral value. Imagine if an alien came to Earth and had the similar intelligence as us (like ET). And if this alien was sentient, rational, could communicate, had emotions, possessed a future valued by him, and he was involved in relationships, then he would have the equal moral significance as you and me, even though he isn't human. Just simply being 'human' is not what makes something morally significant, it's the special characteristics of humans. A zygote doesn't have those characteristics anymore than a skin cell does.

Now let’s say that this particular species of space alien sleeps in a brain dead state. Like a water bear frozen in a polar ice cap. Whenever they sleep they shut down all external functions. Would we then be permitted, morally, to kill that alien while it slept? What if we drugged the alien like your mother? Who says that only one species is superior to the average animal? Maybe the alien species is also superior to the average animal, or even us. It’d still be classified as a member of its respective species based on genetic signatures unique therein.

The appearance of an alien race does not negate the need for a factual basis upon which to establish laws. We cannot say that blacks, Jews, gays, or fetuses are inferior because of our morals and then enact a genocide against members of these groups whenever they become an inconvenience. We have to have a scientific, solid foundation. We cannot enforce the moral view of your minority group.

In your moral perspective this alien, until it sleeps, is as morally significant as a human. So we should legally protect these visitors? At least as long as they’re innocent, that’s what follows your line of logic. Okay, fine. Except that contradicts your earlier line of logic that we both agreed upon. That you cannot pass laws to enforce the moral perspective of a small group of people. Those are your own words. It’s the same thing as your Buddhist example, and the argument is 100% valid. It’s not even under question, we both agree. So by your own standard the industry of executing these aliens whenever they become an inconvenience should be legal in this fantasy world we’ve woven together.


Secondly, individual cells have lower moral significance than of animals, or anything that is sentient, can suffer and wants to continue living


So now it is our ability to suffer that makes us morally significant? So when we’re on pain killers our moral significant is suddenly mitigated? So now it’s our desire to continue living that makes us so morally significant? In that case suicide is not a tragedy at all, it’s a medical operation of neutral moral status. A soldier who forfeits his life for that of a comrade is morally inferior to you and me. So now it’s the sentience factor….well, that’s higher up in this post.


A skin cell cannot suffer, it is not sentient, it isn't capable of having an opinion on whether it should exist or not. It doesn't know it exists. If you kill a skin cell, it doesn't care, it's not capable of caring. It's like ripping up a piece of paper, there's nothing morally wrong with that. That part is clear, the zygote doesn't care if you kill it or not and it doesn't suffer, just like the skin cell


We’re moving back to your Buddhist example.


Thirdly, I've been asking some of my expert Muslim friends on abortion and they gave some pretty surprising answers. I thought they would be similar to what Christians believe, but they weren't. One said it was ok as long as the fetus isn't too developed, another said it all depends on the intentions and reasons for getting the abortion. Another said it was ok period, it's better to not let the baby be born into a bad life, God will take care of it because it goes straight to heaven anyway (makes sense).


You could find plenty of professional Christians who’d say the exact same thing. I believe the Church of Christ is an official, pro-choice church. Still, Qur’anically speaking a fetus is not human until a certain period but abortion, one way or the other, is a sin. Obviously not all Muslims accept every Islamic belief, but that’s the orthodox stance of Islam. Drizza can probably attest to that himself. Your friends are exceptions to the norm.


But one logical point was made about the case when the life of the mother is threatened. If the mother's life is seriously threatened, an abortion should be acceptable because the baby's life is not as significant as the mother's, because the mother has already established a life on Earth and has built many relationships with people that would be hurt or affected by her passing.


I think that people have a right to defend themselves from threats to their life by any means necessary. I think that if a drunk driver is about to hit you, and you can kill him to survive, that’s your right. He’s not consciously deciding to murder you, but you have a right to defend yourself nevertheless. However, there does come a point in which you’re using excessive force. If a c-section would suffice, abortion should not be legal in that case. That’s just my opinion.


Human beings are very morally significant because the relationships they build with each other, their thoughts and morals, their hopes and beliefs just the overall complexity and beauty of our psyche


So now it’s our morality that makes us morally significant? Well, okay, I think gays are immoral let’s round them up. When you drug somebody into a state of being temporarily brain-dead they’ll have no morals at that moment. Are they simply inferior to us while they’re sedated but magically not when they wake up?

So now it’s our relationships that make us morally significant? So then shut-ins are not morally human? Anybody in a state of coma is not human.

Again, Buddhist example. In YOUR moral perspective its thoughts, emotions, morals, and relations. The heinousness of our sadistic psyche.

Some things that are different about a zygote and a skin cell that I have not yet brought up:

Whenever a zygote produces a new cell it grows. Whenever a cell produces a new cell it undergoes mitosis and splits. Only the zygote has the genetic instruction to grow. Skin cells only have the genetic instruction to multiply.

A skin cell is a part of a person. A fetus is not. Although, if you say that it were then you’d be saying your mother had four feet at one point. If you’re a man (I’m still not sure,) then you’re saying that your mother was a hermaphrodite.


Ultimately, attacking my premise that humans are defined by a genetic signature with moral examples is simply silly. You don’t attack science with moral argument. Besides, morality isn’t the question. We both agree that we can’t go around labeling people as inferior based on our moral standing and then eradicating them. The only reason you’re okay with it in this instance is because you happen to agree with the people enacting the genocide for moral reasons. That’s no different than what every slavery-supporting southerner was doing in the Civil War. No different at all. They were saying that for their moral reasons blacks are less than human and thus trying to uphold laws classifying them as such. You’re saying that for your moral reasons a fetus is less than human and thus trying to uphold laws classifying them as such. But a secular government has no room to make these kind of descisions. It's time to stop being primitive and religious and cowering behind your label of moral significants and start being logical, progressive, and secular in a secular system.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/13/09

Allhailodin wrote:
The only reason you say that is because you have skin cells to spare, if you weren't going to produce even one more skin cell in your entire life and were losing them at the same time(due to standard everyday stuff, electromagnetic radiation mainly), you probably wouldn't say that, besides a living thing is still a living thing regardless of whether or not its capable of human level tasks.


You should take a look at my avi. Just because something is necessary doesn’t mean it’s morally significant.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
The only reason you say that is because you have skin cells to spare, if you weren't going to produce even one more skin cell in your entire life and were losing them at the same time(due to standard everyday stuff, electromagnetic radiation mainly), you probably wouldn't say that, besides a living thing is still a living thing regardless of whether or not its capable of human level tasks.


You should take a look at my avi. Just because something is necessary doesn’t mean it’s morally significant.


I refer you to an earlier post I wrote, interestingly enough, the very one you quoted me from.


Thats true, however Its those individual cells that give you the ability to love and the ability to think, without those individual single cells you would be nothing more than a mindless autonomation who only cared about survival and where her next meal is going to come from, if even that, just like that insect, it is those very individual single cells that you hold insignificant that give you all the things that in your regard make you more morally significant that those single cells. You owe all your moral significance to those "insignificant" single cells, as without them you'd be nothing more than a piece of paper or an insect morally.


So if it werent for those single cells like a single skin cell, humans would hold no moral significance at all, we would merely be the fly or spider on the wall to another organism higher up than we are, they would kill us as easily as we kill a insect or mouse. Us humans would hold no moral value or any worth to an organism higher up on the chain than we, if it weren't for those single cells in you and everyone else that you say has no worth, if it wasn't for those worthless cells, you would have no moral worth. The only reason you hold any moral anything is because those single cells allow you to. The entire reason we hold any value to anything is because of those single cells.

So you owe everything you are worth, monetary and moral value, friendships and family ties, and so on to those individual single cells you hold worthless, you would have nothing, and you would be worth nothing without them, we could kill each other as easily as we do a spider or fly and it would be no big deal.

So those single cells are as significant as they are necessary. Even a tiny almost invisible gear that you will never see in a clock is significant, as it is necessary.
Posted 10/13/09

Allhailodin wrote:
So you owe everything you are worth, monetary and moral value, friendships and family ties, and so on to those individual single cells you hold worthless, you would have nothing, and you would be worth nothing without them, we could kill each other as easily as we do a spider or fly and it would be no big deal.

Yet you wouldn't. And that's not because of the worth of your cells nor your DNA. But rather it's because of your human nature based on your emotional standard and value.

Abortion is never about sacrificing one life for the sake of another, when no woman will be happy. Knowing that she's to be the one that will go through with abortion. However, when the living condition is so poor that it cannot sustain the life of childbearing nor child-raising. What's to say that abortion is even worth arguing, when we're so miserable that we can't even bring out the best of ourselves for our future?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/13/09

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
So you owe everything you are worth, monetary and moral value, friendships and family ties, and so on to those individual single cells you hold worthless, you would have nothing, and you would be worth nothing without them, we could kill each other as easily as we do a spider or fly and it would be no big deal.

Yet you wouldn't. And that's not because of the worth of your cells nor your DNA. But rather it's because of your human nature based on your emotional standard and value.

Abortion is never about sacrificing one life for the sake of another, when no woman will be happy. Knowing that she's to be the one that will go through with abortion. However, when the living condition is so poor that it cannot sustain the life of childbearing nor child-raising. What's to say that abortion is even worth arguing, when we're so miserable that we can't even bring out the best of ourselves for our future?


Human nature ? Human nature is to kill lol, Has been for about 2 million years now, longer if you count the species man evolved from, for man killing was an common everyday thing, nothing more than a way to bring back breakfast, lunch and dinner, or to fend off an animal trying to take his dinner away from him, it was no big deal to him, modern human societies(and morals with them) are fairly recent things, not even 75,000 years old lol, that's nothing, human nature hasn't changed in the short amount of time modern society has been around, human nature is still to kill and it will continue to be to kill for a long time, an animals nature takes a long time to go away, even seemingly domesticated animals will still revert to being wild animals under the right conditions, that's proof that even domestication can't weed out an animals nature, humans are no different since we are animals ourselves. Our nature is like our core OS(operating system), morals and values and such things are simply external applications being run by the OS, they can have their processes terminated and relaunched by the OS itself as it pleases. It is still in our nature to kill. Morals and values have nothing to do with human nature. They are two separate entities, morals and values may run on top of out nature, but they cannot replace it. An operating system cannot be overwritten while it is being run(while we are alive). Our nature can terminate any sense of moral value we have if it wants to. Under the right conditions it does.


Well in that case(where the conditions are so poor it would be awful) she could simply give the child up for adoption, of even simpler not have sex in the first place, then her chances of getting pregnant are 0. Whats so hard about not having sex ? Do people seriously have 0 self restraint ? Well then if they have no self restraint, they got what what coming to them. they deserved it.


It is about value, a zygote has no value, so it can be terminated. A person however has value, so they shouldn't be(but still can be anyway) terminated. While its still a zygote and not a person, it can be terminated.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 10/13/09 , edited 10/13/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

I think it’s time to do a review, because we’re circling back around. If a fetus is less morally significant because its level of development then it follows that our level of development determines our moral value. That’s the embodiment of the argument. The fetus is less developed; therefore, it’s inferior.

I am willing to accept this premise simply because it’s a moral question and it’s impossible to debate religious concepts like this. However, if this is true then a teenager is more morally significant than a pre-teen. After all, teenagers are more developed than pre-teens and it’s our level of development that determines our moral significant. Similarly, an adult is more important than a teenager and a five year old is more important than a three year old. Thus, it would be worse to kill an adult than to kill a three year old.

If a fetus is less morally significant because its level of consciousness, sentience, or cognition then it follows that our level of consciousness sentience, or cognition that determines our moral value. In this case I’m less morally significant when I sleep, and your mother’s less morally significant if I drug her.


No, I just said the level of development or sentience doesn't matter, it gains it's moral significance and deserves it's rights when it first becomes sentient. A teenage and pre-teen are both sentient, an adult and a 3 year old are both sentient. A zygote isn't. After it reaches a certain point, yes it is.




Actually, cancer is caused by a mutation of the cells. That’s why the cells in question are unique while the skin cells are not. But, they’re also different. Either way the same argument above applies. They’re not scientifically classified as human beings because human beings are, like every other species of plant and animal, defined by a replicating and active genetic signature.

But I don’t think either one of us is qualified to really make these calls. Just because we’re political thinkers considering the topic doesn’t mean we know more about the subject than the professionals. Now, if only we can could get all of the actually scientists together and have them discuss the topic. Well, the United States Senate Subcommittee already did that.Homo sapiens


From what I know an organism that has the DNA of the species homo sapien is technically human, and so you can make arguments that embryos for stem cell research and certain cancer cells could be considered human.




Although invited to do so, pro-abortions could not produce a single expert witness to testify that human life begins at any time other than conceptions (though one admitted that he wasn’t sure,) and concluded


I don't understand what people mean by when "life" begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are alive, all cells are, life is there before conception. Do they mean when it becomes human?




Now let’s say that this particular species of space alien sleeps in a brain dead state. Like a water bear frozen in a polar ice cap. Whenever they sleep they shut down all external functions. Would we then be permitted, morally, to kill that alien while it slept? What if we drugged the alien like your mother? Who says that only one species is superior to the average animal? Maybe the alien species is also superior to the average animal, or even us. It’d still be classified as a member of its respective species based on genetic signatures unique therein.


No we wouldn't be permitted to do that. If someone goes to sleep he/she loses moral significance, I don't understand why they would. And what does "what if we drugged the alien like your mother?" supposed to mean?




The appearance of an alien race does not negate the need for a factual basis upon which to establish laws. We cannot say that blacks, Jews, gays, or fetuses are inferior because of our morals and then enact a genocide against members of these groups whenever they become an inconvenience. We have to have a scientific, solid foundation. We cannot enforce the moral view of your minority group.

In your moral perspective this alien, until it sleeps, is as morally significant as a human. So we should legally protect these visitors? At least as long as they’re innocent, that’s what follows your line of logic. Okay, fine. Except that contradicts your earlier line of logic that we both agreed upon. That you cannot pass laws to enforce the moral perspective of a small group of people. Those are your own words. It’s the same thing as your Buddhist example, and the argument is 100% valid. It’s not even under question, we both agree. So by your own standard the industry of executing these aliens whenever they become an inconvenience should be legal in this fantasy world we’ve woven together.



Yeah, so the law can't decide what the moral significance of a zygote is for everyone. People can decide for themselves. Yes, we do need a factual basis for laws, scientists have a very good idea of when the fetus develops neutrons and become sentient.



So now it is our ability to suffer that makes us morally significant? So when we’re on pain killers our moral significant is suddenly mitigated? So now it’s our desire to continue living that makes us so morally significant? In that case suicide is not a tragedy at all, it’s a medical operation of neutral moral status. A soldier who forfeits his life for that of a comrade is morally inferior to you and me. So now it’s the sentience factor….well, that’s higher up in this post.


These are really basic ideas for how we shape our morals and not that difficult to understand. You asked me why an adult human is more morally significant than skin cell though, so I guess these ideas are new to you.




So now it’s our morality that makes us morally significant? Well, okay, I think gays are immoral let’s round them up. When you drug somebody into a state of being temporarily brain-dead they’ll have no morals at that moment. Are they simply inferior to us while they’re sedated but magically not when they wake up?

So now it’s our relationships that make us morally significant? So then shut-ins are not morally human? Anybody in a state of coma is not human.


The fact that we're moral agents is a huge factor in our moral significance. Again, basic ideas surrounding the moral significance of human beings.



Some things that are different about a zygote and a skin cell that I have not yet brought up:

Whenever a zygote produces a new cell it grows. Whenever a cell produces a new cell it undergoes mitosis and splits. Only the zygote has the genetic instruction to grow. Skin cells only have the genetic instruction to multiply.

A skin cell is a part of a person. A fetus is not. Although, if you say that it were then you’d be saying your mother had four feet at one point. If you’re a man (I’m still not sure,) then you’re saying that your mother was a hermaphrodite.


And I'm not sure of your gender either

Yes, obviously a skin cell and a zygote are very different.



Ultimately, attacking my premise that humans are defined by a genetic signature with moral examples is simply silly. You don’t attack science with moral argument. Besides, morality isn’t the question. We both agree that we can’t go around labeling people as inferior based on our moral standing and then eradicating them. The only reason you’re okay with it in this instance is because you happen to agree with the people enacting the genocide for moral reasons. That’s no different than what every slavery-supporting southerner was doing in the Civil War. No different at all. They were saying that for their moral reasons blacks are less than human and thus trying to uphold laws classifying them as such. You’re saying that for your moral reasons a fetus is less than human and thus trying to uphold laws classifying them as such. But a secular government has no room to make these kind of descisions. It's time to stop being primitive and religious and cowering behind your label of moral significants and start being logical, progressive, and secular in a secular system.


I agree that the zygote is a human, I said that a long time ago. And the whole reason I went into detail about morality is because you asked. But the main point is, so what if it is technically human? With what you're proposing embryos in stem cell research would then have the same rights as you and me, which is ridiculous.

This is the bottom line:

I personally equate the zygote to one sperm and egg cell, and killing one sperm and egg cell should not be a crime, people do that all the time. Other people can think differently, their beliefs are valid too. But the government can't tell you what to think, just like you said, it should be secular. Making killing a zygote or fetus early in the pregnancy illegal is the same as making the Buddhist beliefs law. People can believe killing insects is wrong too, there's nothing wrong with that, but that belief can't be forced on everyone.
Posted 10/13/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
So you owe everything you are worth, monetary and moral value, friendships and family ties, and so on to those individual single cells you hold worthless, you would have nothing, and you would be worth nothing without them, we could kill each other as easily as we do a spider or fly and it would be no big deal.

Yet you wouldn't. And that's not because of the worth of your cells nor your DNA. But rather it's because of your human nature based on your emotional standard and value.

Abortion is never about sacrificing one life for the sake of another, when no woman will be happy. Knowing that she's to be the one that will go through with abortion. However, when the living condition is so poor that it cannot sustain the life of childbearing nor child-raising. What's to say that abortion is even worth arguing, when we're so miserable that we can't even bring out the best of ourselves for our future?


Human nature ? Human nature is to kill lol, Has been for about 2 million years now, longer if you count the species man evolved from, for man killing was an common everyday thing, nothing more than a way to bring back breakfast, lunch and dinner, or to fend off an animal trying to take his dinner away from him, it was no big deal to him, modern human societies(and morals with them) are fairly recent things, not even 75,000 years old lol, that's nothing, human nature hasn't changed in the short amount of time modern society has been around, human nature is still to kill and it will continue to be to kill for a long time, an animals nature takes a long time to go away, even seemingly domesticated animals will still revert to being wild animals under the right conditions, that's proof that even domestication can't weed out an animals nature, humans are no different since we are animals ourselves. Our nature is like our core OS(operating system), morals and values and such things are simply external applications being run by the OS, they can have their processes terminated and relaunched by the OS itself as it pleases. It is still in our nature to kill. Morals and values have nothing to do with human nature. They are two separate entities, morals and values may run on top of out nature, but they cannot replace it. An operating system cannot be overwritten while it is being run(while we are alive). Our nature can terminate any sense of moral value we have if it wants to. Under the right conditions it does.


Well in that case(where the conditions are so poor it would be awful) she could simply give the child up for adoption, of even simpler not have sex in the first place, then her chances of getting pregnant are 0. Whats so hard about not having sex ? Do people seriously have 0 self restraint ? Well then if they have no self restraint, they got what what coming to them. they deserved it.


It is about value, a zygote has no value, so it can be terminated. A person however has value, so they shouldn't be(but still can be anyway) terminated. While its still a zygote and not a person, it can be terminated.

Do you think that's all that makes up the human nature? When it takes life sustaining nurturing and nourishing mother nature to prevent us from killing one another.

Or is that what you plan to teach and raise your child into, killer?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/14/09 , edited 10/14/09

DomFortress wrote:

Do you think that's all that makes up the human nature? When it takes life sustaining nurturing and nourishing mother nature to prevent us from killing one another.

Or is that what you plan to teach and raise your child into, killer?


Human nature consists of the following things, survival(causes killing) greed(also causes killing), and continuing the species, and this is where it differs between genders

Men, being the one/s who do the hunting, killing, scavenging, fighting off predators, ect,

Women ( and gay men ) it's saying back at the area where the human group is settling for the night and taking care of the young, preparing the food the men brought back, cooking it, maybe going berry, root or nut gathering nearby, so on.

These jobs reflect on their nature, the guys are built physically stronger and tougher so they get the hard jobs and the dirty work, protecting the females / young ones who can't defend themselves against predators because their weaker and smaller. (remember back then a group of a few human males could take down a brown / black bear with nothing more than a sharpened / pointy stick, and / or rocks, as bears where one of the item on the menu, same with the mammoth, with just a stick, and maybe a type of lever device to amplify the force of the stick when it was thrown, i remember reading something about that somewhere, but it too would be made out of wood or stone ). Men and women being considered equals is a fairly new concept.

Survival = killing other animals for food, killing other humans for land, territory, water, resources, and so on, ( I want your land because it has a stream nearby and a grassy area, and my closest stream is 3 miles away and no grassy area where herding animals graze, so I have to kill you for it, or I die )

Greed = killing animals and humans alike for wants and desires. ( I want your land because I want more land, so I'll kill you and take it)


Thats all humans consisted of for hundreds of thousands of years lol, homo sapien has been around for about 250,000 years, and humans were doing this before homo sapien. Probably started with homo erectus, since most likely they were the first human genus to live in hunter-gatherer societies. And homo erectus appeared somewhere around 1.8 million years ago.


That's a pretty significant portion of human existence lol, you can't just erase 1.8 million years of human ways in a mere 5 - 20 thousand years, you can try all you like, but its still useless, humans will revert to their default nature under the right conditions, almost anyone would, you do get the occasional one who would rather die than kill but they are by no means the majority. Pretty rare lol
Posted 10/14/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Do you think that's all that makes up the human nature? When it takes life sustaining nurturing and nourishing mother nature to prevent us from killing one another.

Or is that what you plan to teach and raise your child into, killer?


Human nature consists of the following things, survival(causes killing) greed(also causes killing), and continuing the species, and this is where it differs between genders

Men, being the one/s who do the hunting, killing, scavenging, fighting off predators, ect,

Women ( and gay men ) it's saying back at the area where the human group is settling for the night and taking care of the young, preparing the food the men brought back, cooking it, maybe going berry, root or nut gathering nearby, so on.

These jobs reflect on their nature, the guys are built physically stronger and tougher so they get the hard jobs and the dirty work, protecting the females / young ones who can't defend themselves against predators because their weaker and smaller. (remember back then a group of a few human males could take down a brown / black bear with nothing more than a sharpened / pointy stick, and / or rocks, as bears where one of the item on the menu, same with the mammoth, with just a stick, and maybe a type of lever device to amplify the force of the stick when it was thrown, i remember reading something about that somewhere, but it too would be made out of wood or stone ). Men and women being considered equals is a fairly new concept.

Survival = killing other animals for food, killing other humans for land, territory, water, resources, and so on, ( I want your land because it has a stream nearby and a grassy area, and my closest stream is 3 miles away and no grassy area where herding animals graze, so I have to kill you for it, or I die )

Greed = killing animals and humans alike for wants and desires. ( I want your land because I want more land, so I'll kill you and take it)


Thats all humans consisted of for hundreds of thousands of years lol, homo sapien has been around for about 250,000 years, and humans were doing this before homo sapien. Probably started with homo erectus, since most likely they were the first human genus to live in hunter-gatherer societies. And homo erectus appeared somewhere around 1.8 million years ago.


That's a pretty significant portion of human existence lol, you can't just erase 1.8 million years of human ways in a mere 5 - 20 thousand years, you can try all you like, but its still useless, humans will revert to their default nature under the right conditions, almost anyone would, you do get the occasional one who would rather die than kill but they are by no means the majority. Pretty rare lol

I'm not gay, yet I like doing domestic works as well as physical activities. When I get to socialize with other people with skills better than mine, in order for me to learn from them.

Now tell me, what does your existentialism has to say about an individual like me? When killing is not my intention as much as empowering.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/14/09 , edited 10/14/09

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Do you think that's all that makes up the human nature? When it takes life sustaining nurturing and nourishing mother nature to prevent us from killing one another.

Or is that what you plan to teach and raise your child into, killer?


Human nature consists of the following things, survival(causes killing) greed(also causes killing), and continuing the species, and this is where it differs between genders

Men, being the one/s who do the hunting, killing, scavenging, fighting off predators, ect,

Women ( and gay men ) it's saying back at the area where the human group is settling for the night and taking care of the young, preparing the food the men brought back, cooking it, maybe going berry, root or nut gathering nearby, so on.

These jobs reflect on their nature, the guys are built physically stronger and tougher so they get the hard jobs and the dirty work, protecting the females / young ones who can't defend themselves against predators because their weaker and smaller. (remember back then a group of a few human males could take down a brown / black bear with nothing more than a sharpened / pointy stick, and / or rocks, as bears where one of the item on the menu, same with the mammoth, with just a stick, and maybe a type of lever device to amplify the force of the stick when it was thrown, i remember reading something about that somewhere, but it too would be made out of wood or stone ). Men and women being considered equals is a fairly new concept.

Survival = killing other animals for food, killing other humans for land, territory, water, resources, and so on, ( I want your land because it has a stream nearby and a grassy area, and my closest stream is 3 miles away and no grassy area where herding animals graze, so I have to kill you for it, or I die )

Greed = killing animals and humans alike for wants and desires. ( I want your land because I want more land, so I'll kill you and take it)


Thats all humans consisted of for hundreds of thousands of years lol, homo sapien has been around for about 250,000 years, and humans were doing this before homo sapien. Probably started with homo erectus, since most likely they were the first human genus to live in hunter-gatherer societies. And homo erectus appeared somewhere around 1.8 million years ago.


That's a pretty significant portion of human existence lol, you can't just erase 1.8 million years of human ways in a mere 5 - 20 thousand years, you can try all you like, but its still useless, humans will revert to their default nature under the right conditions, almost anyone would, you do get the occasional one who would rather die than kill but they are by no means the majority. Pretty rare lol


I'm not gay, yet I like doing domestic works as well as physical activities. When I get to socialize with other people with skills better than mine, in order for me to learn from them.

Now tell me, what does your existentialism has to say about an individual like me? When killing is not my intention as much as empowering.


1, In the time we live in now, you can do that all you want, cause in modern society, there is no need for men to go out and bring home a deer or bear or something for dinner every night, those times are gone, because now you can just walk to the store and buy meat and veggies there(although it still involves killing, that meat was once alive, and the veggies are still alive, your killing them when you eat them) walk back home and cook it on the stove or in the microwave oven, but the evidence of what I say is all around you : The majority of women are naturally better at taking care of the young and cooking food/s, housekeeping type stuff I guess is a way to reference it, and the majority of men are naturally better at physical stuff like sports, moving heavy things, ect. Everywhere you look evidence that we were once hunter-gatherers still remains.


2, Although the entire reason homosexuality probably emerged in the first place was because we were hunter gatherers, while they are useful for women type jobs( cooking, tending to young ect) they are also men, so they are still built strong and so on, so if they didn't exist, while the men were out hunting their dinner, the women would be left unguarded and defenseless without gay men around, since they are still men they are useful if a predator decides to attack while the other men are away. ( I can't this for sure as its just my speculation, but it would make sense, doesn't explain gay chicks tho, maybe they were useful as reserve hunters in case one of the men got injured or killed. )
Posted 10/14/09

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Do you think that's all that makes up the human nature? When it takes life sustaining nurturing and nourishing mother nature to prevent us from killing one another.

Or is that what you plan to teach and raise your child into, killer?


Human nature consists of the following things, survival(causes killing) greed(also causes killing), and continuing the species, and this is where it differs between genders

Men, being the one/s who do the hunting, killing, scavenging, fighting off predators, ect,

Women ( and gay men ) it's saying back at the area where the human group is settling for the night and taking care of the young, preparing the food the men brought back, cooking it, maybe going berry, root or nut gathering nearby, so on.

These jobs reflect on their nature, the guys are built physically stronger and tougher so they get the hard jobs and the dirty work, protecting the females / young ones who can't defend themselves against predators because their weaker and smaller. (remember back then a group of a few human males could take down a brown / black bear with nothing more than a sharpened / pointy stick, and / or rocks, as bears where one of the item on the menu, same with the mammoth, with just a stick, and maybe a type of lever device to amplify the force of the stick when it was thrown, i remember reading something about that somewhere, but it too would be made out of wood or stone ). Men and women being considered equals is a fairly new concept.

Survival = killing other animals for food, killing other humans for land, territory, water, resources, and so on, ( I want your land because it has a stream nearby and a grassy area, and my closest stream is 3 miles away and no grassy area where herding animals graze, so I have to kill you for it, or I die )

Greed = killing animals and humans alike for wants and desires. ( I want your land because I want more land, so I'll kill you and take it)


Thats all humans consisted of for hundreds of thousands of years lol, homo sapien has been around for about 250,000 years, and humans were doing this before homo sapien. Probably started with homo erectus, since most likely they were the first human genus to live in hunter-gatherer societies. And homo erectus appeared somewhere around 1.8 million years ago.


That's a pretty significant portion of human existence lol, you can't just erase 1.8 million years of human ways in a mere 5 - 20 thousand years, you can try all you like, but its still useless, humans will revert to their default nature under the right conditions, almost anyone would, you do get the occasional one who would rather die than kill but they are by no means the majority. Pretty rare lol


I'm not gay, yet I like doing domestic works as well as physical activities. When I get to socialize with other people with skills better than mine, in order for me to learn from them.

Now tell me, what does your existentialism has to say about an individual like me? When killing is not my intention as much as empowering.


1, In the time we live in now, you can do that all you want, cause in modern society, there is no need for men to go out and bring home a deer or bear or something for dinner every night, those times are gone, because now you can just walk to the store and buy meat and veggies there(although it still involves killing, that meat was once alive, and the veggies are still alive, your killing them when you eat them) walk back home and cook it on the stove or in the microwave oven, but the evidence of what I say is all around you : The majority of women are naturally better at taking care of the young and cooking food/s, housekeeping type stuff I guess is a way to reference it, and the majority of men are naturally better at physical stuff like sports, moving heavy things, ect. Everywhere you look evidence that we were once hunter-gatherers still remains.


2, Although the entire reason homosexuality probably emerged in the first place was because we were hunter gatherers, while they are useful for women type jobs( cooking, tending to young ect) they are also men, so they are still built strong and so on, so if they didn't exist, while the men were out hunting their dinner, the women would be left unguarded and defenseless without gay men around, since they are still men they are useful if a predator decides to attack while the other men are away. ( I can't this for sure as its just my speculation, but it would make sense, doesn't explain gay chicks tho, maybe they were useful as reserve hunters in case one of the men got injured or killed. )

Then you still got a lot to learn about the stronger and fairer sex, when you didn't even read The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap by Susan Pinker.

And when I was talking about "the stronger and fairer sex", I wasn't talking about men.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/14/09 , edited 10/14/09

DomFortress [link url="/forumtopic-569038/pregnant-mothers-are-hermaphrodites/?fpid=28191951" title="View quoted
Then you still got a lot to learn about the stronger and fairer sex, when you didn't even read

The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap by Susan Pinker
.


And when I was talking about "the stronger and fairer sex",

I wasn't talking about men
.




Thats pretty awesome actually, but the cause of that is more than likely directly and / or indirectly man himself, it's our own fault, so if we die off because of an inability to reproduce(or produce males, but some species don't even need males, so i suppose if the need arose, we could just turn into a all female race that reproduces asexually, like certain lizard species), we got what we deserved. Modern society wasn't supposed to exist in the first place anyway, so its no real loss.

250,000 years ago, or even 150,000 who would be the superior sex, a man or a woman ? Who would have been more likely to take down a brown bear, a group of 5 women armed with pointy sticks or a group a 5 men armed with pointy sticks, who consistently brings home the food ? And as I understand it, we need food to survive.

Things that happen in modern society don't get to count, as there not naturally occurring. In nature, in most if not all primates the female is almost always smaller and weaker than the males, humans are no different since we too are primates produced by nature. Well at least we were lol, Now-a-days humans are weak animals, both genders are, since we pretty much become worthless if without our modern technology(or i guess electricity, since almost all modern tech is powered by electricity), and also since we've lost a lot of muscle mass we used to have.

The way nature produced us, and most other primate species, is the male is superior to the female, that will remain true unless we ourselves change that through biological methods like the link I just read, or technological methods like an increasingly sedentary lifestyle though an increase in reliance on technology and a decrease in physical output.
Posted 10/14/09 , edited 10/14/09

Allhailodin wrote:
Thats pretty awesome actually, but the cause of that is more than likely directly and / or indirectly man himself, it's our own fault, so if we die off because of an inability to reproduce(or produce males, but some species don't even need males, so i suppose if the need arose, we could just turn into a all female race that reproduces asexually, like certain lizard species), we got what we deserved. Modern society wasn't supposed to exist in the first place anyway, so its no real loss.

250,000 years ago, or even 150,000 who would be the superior sex, a man or a woman ? Who would have been more likely to take down a brown bear, a group of 5 women armed with pointy sticks or a group a 5 men armed with pointy sticks, who consistently brings home the food ? And as I understand it, we need food to survive.

Things that happen in modern society don't get to count, as there not naturally occurring. In nature, in most if not all primates the female is almost always smaller and weaker than the males, humans are no different since we too are primates produced by nature. Well at least we were lol, Now-a-days humans are weak animals, both genders are, since we pretty much become worthless if without our modern technology(or i guess electricity, since almost all modern tech is powered by electricity), and also since we've lost a lot of muscle mass we used to have.

The way nature produced us, and most other primate species, is the male is superior to the female, that will remain true unless we ourselves change that through biological methods like the link I just read, or technological methods like an increasingly sedentary lifestyle though an increase in reliance on technology and a decrease in physical output.

That's where you're wrong, when men are the weaker ones since birth. All you care about are the outer male physical appearance, when human males had to rely on the females to initiate the reproductive cycle with odor detection.

When was the last time that your girlfriend says she likes how you smell?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 10/14/09


Lol that doesn't mean anything. Lots of species do that. it doesn't mean anything. Its just how those species work.

So women can smell better than men, so what, a dog can smell things better than a woman but the woman is still superior to the dog.

Men and women are not equal, they were not created equal, and they can never become truly equal, there will always be advantages one gender has over the other that dictate this. Its a natural law.

Men > Women in physical strength, killing, fighting, overall general providing for the family, ect.

Women > Men in smelling apparently, caring for young, cooking, general nurturing stuff and so on.

There is no such thing as true equality in the animal kingdom, whether it's between genders of species or species themselves, there will always be differences, no matter how infinitesimally minute(besides obvious gender differences) that will prevent this. In primates the males are physically stronger and bigger than the females in some reptile species, the females are more aggressive than the males, but not in others. ect,

Sure equality is a nice concept, but it is just that : a concept, there will always be differences between males and females both physically(besides obvious gender differences of course those don't count), emotionally(women / gay dudes [because their brains are physically wired like a chicks, and the opposite applies too] are generally superior here), and mentally(varies based on task between genders) that prevent this.

Although equal rights / opportunity are a different matter and that possible, but true equality in its entirety is not. But in nature there is no such things as rights, even life isn't a right as it's a privilege, and opportunities are quite often taken.

btw you terminate the link tag with "/link" not "/url".
Posted 10/14/09 , edited 10/14/09

Allhailodin wrote:



Lol that doesn't mean anything. Lots of species do that. it doesn't mean anything. Its just how those species work.

So women can smell better than men, so what, a dog can smell things better than a woman but the woman is still superior to the dog.

Men and women are not equal, they were not created equal, and they can never become truly equal, there will always be advantages one gender has over the other that dictate this. Its a natural law.

Men > Women in physical strength, killing, fighting, overall general providing for the family, ect.

Women > Men in smelling apparently, caring for young, cooking, general nurturing stuff and so on.


There is no such thing as true equality in the animal kingdom, whether it's between genders of species or species themselves, there will always be differences, no matter how infinitesimally minute(besides obvious gender differences) that will prevent this. In primates the males are physically stronger and bigger than the females in some reptile species, the females are more aggressive than the males, but not in others. ect,

Sure equality is a nice concept, but it is just that : a concept, there will always be differences between males and females both physically(besides obvious gender differences of course those don't count), emotionally(women / gay dudes [because their brains are physically wired like a chicks, and the opposite applies too] are generally superior here), and mentally(varies based on task between genders) that prevent this.

Although equal rights / opportunity are a different matter and that possible, but true equality in its entirety is not. But in nature there is no such things as rights, even life isn't a right as it's a privilege, and opportunities are quite often taken.

btw you terminate the link tag with "/link" not "/url".

Therefore I ask, by your definition of men, what's the most important skill that a man have in direct relation of raising a child? The answer, a pines that acts as a sperm donor. When our world no longer need conflicts in the form of war nor business corporation, because women in developed countries are out performing men in academic and workplace, while there are real inner strengths to be learned for men from women in the world of business.

Now, how should future men adapt to a changing world of civilization, when workplaces from top to bottom are adapting women with their inner strength? Move to Japan, perhaps?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.