₦airaland Forum

johnydon22:
Which one?

Your claim a fetus is alive.

Now we know you are the one who didn't get it. lmao

Tintingz: A human needs the brain to be term "alive".
Johnydon22: Nope. not necessarily. to be conscious more like it.

What did Johny mean? He meant that humans don't brain to me termed alive, that there need brain to be conscious rather.

What did tintingz comprehend: Johny said humans needs to be conscious to be termed alive.

so so far from what Johny said.

Is Johny surprised?

Nope.

so why do you think a no brain embryo or fetus should be given right to life over the carrier's rights?

And it's the brain, conscious that actually make a human a living human being.

according to johnydon, a human is an homosapien, and a foetus is a developmental stage.This Question Would only be answered sufficiently if we can expound on the following?.
1, every person has a right to life,
2, is a foetus a person?.

tintingz:
Your claim a fetus is alive.

so why do you think a no brain embryo or fetus should be given right to life over the carrier's rights?

And it's the brain, conscious that actually make a human a living human being.

Not Neccesarily. Have u forgotten MRNIGERD. if a homo can satisfy this premise,he or she is living

Johnnydon22 what do you have to say about fetus in fetu
Where a twin lives inside another twin
Should the underdeveloped twin be removed?

tintingz:
Your claim a fetus is alive.

it is not a claim. it is elementary knowledge.

so why do you think a no brain embryo or fetus should be given right to life over the carrier's rights?

And it's the brain, conscious that actually make a human a living human being.

Because based on the contingency of "murder" on human life, the only thing needed for "Murder" to occur is "human life" not consciousness, brain or what not.

And since murder is morally not permissible except for excusable cases of self defense or unintentional, resorting to murder over inconvenience is by all intent and meaning a moral abhorrence.

johnydon22:
it is not a claim. it is elementary knowledge.

Ok.

Because based on the contingency of "murder" on human life, the only thing needed for "Murder" to occur is "human life" not consciousness, brain or what not.

Ok, the right of an embryo or fetus is the same to that of an adult human?

And since murder is morally not permissible except for excusable cases of self defense or unintentional, resorting to murder over inconvenience is by all intent and meaning a moral abhorrence.

Again the applications surrounding murder differs in societies.

tintingz:
Ok.


Ok, the right of an embryo or fetus is the same to that of an adult human?

The intrinsic value of an embryo is same for every human because this value is contingent on the state of being human.

This is a moral argument not a legal one that deals with rights.

Again the applications surrounding murder differs in societies.

I'm pretty sure i have addressed instances you brought up earlier siting this argument.

johnydon22:
The intrinsic value of an embryo is same for every human because this value is contingent on the state of being human.

This is a moral argument not a legal one that deals with rights.

I'm pretty sure i have addressed instances you brought up earlier siting this argument.

There is no intrinsic value, the universe does not care. We are the ones who place things on a scale of value.

A fetus is a potential individual, it is human but it is not yet a person. It has not sense of identity nor is it conscious. Natural processes can induce the mother to spontaneously eject the fetus aka miscarriage without rhyme or reason.

johnydon22:
The intrinsic value of an embryo is same for every human because this value is contingent on the state of being human.

This is a moral argument not a legal one that deals with rights.

Ok, the state of the carrier is irrelevant?

How is morality established?

I'm pretty sure i have addressed instances you brought up earlier siting this argument.

You haven't demonstrate how you can tell a Muslim(who believes the sharia is the absolute morality) about killing homos, apostates, adulterers is murder.

tintingz:
Ok, the state of the carrier is irrelevant?

Inconvinience is a lesser evil than death. So murdering someone because of inconvenience is a moral abhorrence

How is morality established?

Things that improve human survival, individual well being, societal well being and decreases suffering

You haven't demonstrate how you can tell a Muslim(who believes the sharia is the absolute morality) about killing homos, apostates, adulterers is murder.

Go up and read what I said there again, I won't be dragged into an unnecessary repetition

LordReed:
There is no intrinsic value, the universe does not care. We are the ones who place things on a scale of value.

A fetus is a potential individual, it is human but it is not yet a person. It has not sense of identity nor is it conscious. Natural processes can induce the mother to spontaneously eject the fetus aka miscarriage without rhyme or reason.

Lol. Humans actually place that value on human life and that is the premise of that statement.

As long as "human life" is continued to be viewed as sacred and murder remains contingent on termination of human life.

The point remains intact.

Until it is ok to kill a human life, it is not ok.

johnydon22:
Inconvinience is a lesser evil than death. So murdering someone because of inconvenience is a moral abhorrence

Ok, a fetus without no pains, consciousness is more or has same importance than a living human that feels pains and psychological trauma?

Ok, let's play along, Between killing a full developed baby and terminating a brainless fetus, which is less evil?

Things that improve human survival, individual well being, societal well being and decreases suffering

Ok, was that how morality was established in human history? Yes?

Go up and read what I said there again, I won't be dragged into an unnecessary repetition

No, no you won't be repeating anything.

Why is killing homosexuals, apostate, adulterers immoral and murder to you?

Is it your belief or what?

johnydon22:
Lol. Humans actually place that value on human life and that is the premise of that statement.

As long as "human life" is continued to be viewed as sacred and murder remains contingent on termination of human life.

The point remains intact.

Until it is ok to kill a human life, it is not ok.

Lol.

LordReed, shey you dey read am?

johnydon22:
Lol. Humans actually place that value on human life and that is the premise of that statement.

As long as "human life" is continued to be viewed as sacred and murder remains contingent on termination of human life.

The point remains intact.

Until it is ok to kill a human life, it is not ok.

Is your contention that there is no situation in which taking a life is justified? So even if the quality of life of the resulting child is going to be very low you contend that it should still proceed to be birthed?

tintingz:
Lol.

LordReed, shey you dey read am?

Still scratching my head bros.