Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Pro Choicers Should Reject Northams Apparent Support for Infanticide" video.

  1. he's referring to fetuses, friend I have a one-up on the Englishin' going on here. Answer me this: if a woman is "bearing a child" in her womb...is the child "unborn"? (Strange phrasing, but clearly you just say "yes, it's unborn", but you'd have to admit, to "bear an unborn child" is a bit of a contradiction of statements.)
    4
  2. Rights of the unborn? I think you don't know what words have sense, and which do not.
    2
  3. I don't think you understand what rights are I think you're confused. Rights are assigned to the living. Not the non-living. Unborn = non-living. Verpal Can't forget actually having a conscious awareness of your self. That's also a 'thing' that doesn't just happen off the bat, as soon some cells clump together.
    2
  4. Verpal, that is inconclusive. The mirror test methodology is limited, at best (and shows a marked instance of babies learning self-recognition via being exposed to the mirror test). A baby at that age wouldn't have a concept of "it's self", but "self" per se, would be engendered at the first senses being born out of the individual.
    2
  5. Oh, I didn't mean, like "cellular" life, as I'm sure no one did. I'm sure you don't think it's "cellular life" we're talking about, either. I mean, you don't think it's "cellular life" that we're referring to, do you? We're talking about human life. So as such, by "non-living", I meant as an "animal" or a "human" if you prefer (either way), but not a "vegetable" or a "rock" or "cellular life". So no, not "objectively false". You're objectively fallacious in your assertion. And as I stated before, the term "unborn child" makes no sense, and it should be stricken from English idiom for it's overstated idiocy. A child is BARED in the womb...thus, if a child is in the womb, to call it UNBORN is...just plain stupid...and doesn't make logical sense, nor linguistical sense, but only in the vaguest way, in which English can provide exceptionally ugly sentences and nuance, and still be grammatically correct, and/or readable. So, to re-iterate...again...a child BARED in the womb, is BORN- either that, or is eventually born (depending on your point of view, which is afterall what this entire bitchfit [from you people] is about...about how "life begins at conception" -- which is when...a soul can be said to possess the body (or vise versa, depending on your point of view- it matters not), but that is when the human body can possess a sense of what it is, even if it doesn't possess the 'context, 'structure', 'subject matter' ect (whatever you want to presume to call it) to realize what [and/or who ] it is. -- via your own, and assumedly most others' here's logic [see? witness the terrible phrasing!] you can also postulate that the child is already "living while unborn", and/or "presumed to have a human soul at x interval of time" which you can never adjudicate upon facts, or inference [internal logic, ie, inductive reasoning], but you can all intuit when it is precisely based on your feelings and emotions. It's a tad...cumbersome...reasoning, that is.
    2
  6. China is forcing said 'clone wars', dude. But yeah...lol, ok, this shit makes everyone on the left look more insane than usual. Yes, the child is born...but alas, reproductive rights to the rescue! Can't let this unfairness persist, the mother doesn't want the child. It's like if little Timmy failed on a test one day, and showed his mom, and she was like "we're bringing you to the euthanasia clinic if you don't smarten up!!"
    1
  7. Either people can think free or they can't. Inherently, considering this fact, everything is dangerous.
    1
  8. We were talking about the rights that are assigned in a constitution. "Divine" right isn't granted some mass of organism, when it hasn't a soul. The soul is the given personality and character of the human- your "human rights" (as attested to by the UN charter, to not be wholly ironic, but to point out a potential inconsistency, for future reference- hereby delineated as the notion of "the UN having no authority") begin there, at the stage where you are indexed as a "human type". It is not given at some "soul stage" before birth, being bared in the womb, or when "you are unborn" (whatever that means). I means, when you are birthed, or at least at a certain stage of conception (ie, not inception of the "child" in some "spirit form", or insemination of sperm to the egg, not at all...but instead...), eg, when the "fetus" develops a conscious mind in it's own soul, or "given personality" or "given character", that is to say, 'with the ability to think', whether by maintaining thought [in the formative stages], or even in the early stages of development when the mind retains a sense of self.
    1
  9. No, Ben McKean. Not a tall. Study fuzzy and/or paraconsistent logic [ie, non-classical logic]. You friggin' "Scholasticists" should keep up to date with the literature on Logic, before talking about the subject. I know old stuff is cool, and shit. But logic, as you so highly prize, is not something that has denigrated...that is, afterall, if you trust the math. You do trust the math, don't you? study non-classical Logic. PS: Addressed to Bobert Blumenthal: if granted by a constitution it maybe revoked by said constitution Show me where the king and/or high-priest is. If you have to be conscious then as soon as you lose consciousness you lose all rights. Same for self aware. If you are unconscious I can do what ever I like to you by your logic. No. That isn't how laws work, nor the constitution of the United States, nor any constitution that I am aware of in the first-world. Your logic is...inconsistent. At best.
    1
  10. If no king is required, then what the fuck are you complaining about? Jesus isn't here, man. You see him? are you king? are there more than one? oh wait, you don't need a king. Ok. So then there is what problem? Also, no, the constitution of the USA is based off of the Magna Carta among other things, many sources of interest, actually. And if you are only human when "x" (whatever that means, because, you know...you haven't informed anyone what that means- nice try though, you sound really smart), but not when "not x", then that means that the "law", as you say, doesn't apply; that'd go with any "law", as is explicated in the posited facts, verily. What "law" could be applied to the "non-human", as you said. What you want to say is this: there are "hidden rights" I apply with my ethics, these "rights" are applied to the "unborn" (non-human entities) qua formless cellular mass of concocted matter, with no consciousness, and no conscious, and thus, no mind, nor personality nor "human" quality to speak of. I say to you: where is your right to make such rights for such formless entities? What about other formless nonhuman entities? how about AIs? you wanna go down that route?
    1
  11. There's also a bunch of it in labs across the globe. Is it all against the rights of those unborns to be so misused in such a way?
    1