|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you don't even have the ability to choose.
Exactly -- and you play with them because "you were not responsible" or "you changed your mind" etc.
Quote:
Vegetables are life too... so are animals, and so on.
By that logic, we should treat humans the same as vegetables? 
Quote:
No, it is the pregnant women who choose whether to have an abortion that are the judges. Don't like abortion? Good, don't have one!
Ah, again that argument. I would agree if it wouldn't involve someone else (or future someone else). You see, when you abort, you are not only the judge of your body, but also decide for someone else -- and in fact, again, it's not like in euthanasia because there you did not put the respective person in coma/whatever. Here, you put it in coma, then you apply euthanasia.. I think that is called murder, no?
Quote:
And you're wrong about the fetus being a process as having started and that will progress by itself. It needs hormones and nourishment from the woman, and so on. If it is deprived of those, then the mother will miscarry.
Yes but that involves the mother's health too.
To put it differently, read my last post. You don't need to "stop" sperm, but you need to stop a fetus (abortion). I hope you can see this difference.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:39 PM |
|
|
Did you read my last post?
Just checking... because you didn't quote it
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Exactly -- and you play with them because "you were not responsible" or "you changed your mind" etc.
Let's say you own a farm with cows. Do you ask a cow, "Hey, would you like to get slaughtered?" No, because cows don't have the same rights that humans do. Neither should fetuses (those that are not yet viable).
Quote:
By that logic, we should treat humans the same as vegetables?
No, because we ourselves are humans.
Quote:
I would agree if it wouldn't involve someone else (or future someone else).
Should it then be a crime not to put every sperm and egg to use?
Quote:
Here, you put it in coma, then you apply euthanasia...
Here, it starts out in coma. That is its nature up to a point.
Let's say that somebody is building a skyscraper, and you can't communicate with the people building it. You don't like that they're building it. So one day they place a couple of bricks as a beginning, and you come with a sledgehammer and smash it. They get the idea, and decide not to build.
Another scenario is this: the skyscraper is nearly finished, and you come and blow it up. Then they'll sue you for it.
But if you leave the bricks alone they'll build a skyscraper!
Quote:
Yes but that involves the mother's health too.
I don't see what you're saying here. Does that mean that you think that it would be all right to cut off the hormones?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:45 PM |
|
|
Sorry I must've skipped it, here goes:
Quote:
I understand the law is flawed, but then again why should we listen to your preferences, when you yourself don't know when a baby gains "life"?
My preferences? I'm not suggesting you do something -- when you abort, you do something, and do not know the consequences. Myself, I do not say you should do anything, so I hardly see how I 'decide when life begins' when I do not involve that. I only say, since we don't know that, we are like fighting on a mined territory -- who knows when a mine's gonna explode. On the other hand, if you stay still, you can't have any consequences.
Quote:
Yes, the fetus is a process that has already started. It is NOT a life that has already started. That's a difference
But it is a process that will yield life, and already started (besides we don't know if it's alive or not either).
I only pointed out that the analogy with sperm is flawed -- if not, tell my why do you need to "stop" the fetus while do nothing for the sperm?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
we are like fighting on a mined territory
Ah, but you're not the one fighting.
Quote:
But it is a process that will yield life, and already started (besides we don't know if it's alive or not either).
So is sexual intercourse (in some cases). Does that mean that it shouldn't be stopped?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 25, 2008 10:53 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:11, 25 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Let's say you own a farm with cows. Do you ask a cow, "Hey, would you like to get slaughtered?" No, because cows don't have the same rights that humans do. Neither should fetuses (those that are not yet viable).
What do you mean, neither should fetuses? The cow won't turn into a human, a fetus will. When you abort, you stop it from 'receiving rights' from the almighty God you worship called Law. So it's bad, because it's like stealing it's ID, or actually not wanting to give it the ID -- you stop it from being 'identified' later as a human (if that's how you a define a human  ).
Quote:
No, because we ourselves are humans.
And the fetus isn't? I'm really surprised, what's your definition of human? Is it being recognized by the society as a human? Does that mean 'tribes' not in the society are not humans? Biologically it seems they are. Politically, I guess it's on the law -- politics are a very dangerous subject when talking about life and death.
Quote:
Should it then be a crime not to put every sperm and egg to use?
Why? I don't get it. Frankly you are either ignorant of what I repeatedly post, or don't understand.
You don't need to stop sperm. You don't need "abortion" for sperm, do you? Why do you need it for a fetus? Because it's different. Do you really get this?
Quote:
Here, it starts out in coma. That is its nature up to a point.
But it starts because of you. Or are you telling me God gets you pregnant whenever he wants or something?
Quote:
Let's say that somebody is building a skyscraper, and you can't communicate with the people building it. You don't like that they're building it. So one day they place a couple of bricks as a beginning, and you come with a sledgehammer and smash it. They get the idea, and decide not to build.
That would be ok if the skyscraper would be solely my property and involving only me. But unfortunately, not so for the fetus -- by aborting, you also implicitly remove it of future rights 
Quote:
Another scenario is this: the skyscraper is nearly finished, and you come and blow it up. Then they'll sue you for it.
They could sue me before if it was theirs and I had no business there, why not? 
Quote:
But if you leave the bricks alone they'll build a skyscraper!
Supposedly that I gave them the bricks in the first place, and signed a contract with them that way
You see, it's wrong to sign a contract with them, and then later say "I've changed my mind". In business this doesn't work, you truly need to be responsible.
Quote:
I don't see what you're saying here. Does that mean that you think that it would be all right to cut off the hormones?
No, if the fetus dies by lack of 'hormones' then the mother would suffer from it as well -- it would, for normal people, be a tragedy. For kids that don't take responsibility, you know, even drugs are "cool".
Quote:
So is sexual intercourse (in some cases). Does that mean that it shouldn't be stopped?
Sorry but that is based on the will of the people -- they can stop it. However, the scenario with the fetus is like this: a stranger comes and stops them, because you see, the 'will' of the baby is to grow up. Just like the people having that intercourse (their 'will'). However, the mother decides to abort --> meaning a stranger stops them.
If you ask me, not it's not ok for a stranger to stop them.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 12:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you mean, neither should fetuses?
There's a difference between being a human biologically and being a human socially.
Quote:
Does that mean 'tribes' not in the society are not humans?
Tribes themselves are societies.
Quote:
Why?
Because it's potential life.
Quote:
That would be ok if the skyscraper would be solely my property and involving only me.
Okay, let's have a different metaphor. You plant a rosebush in your yard. Later, you decide that you don't like it, and tear it out. Can you do so?
Quote:
by aborting, you also implicitly remove it of future rights
"Future rights"? There's no such thing as future rights, only rights you have right now. That'd be like someone in jail saying, "You can't keep me here because I'll be released later and then you won't be allowed to keep me here!"
Quote:
They could sue me before if it was theirs and I had no business there, why not?
Yes, but it's doubtful that they'd go through all the trouble for a few bricks, but they would for the whole skyscraper.
Quote:
Supposedly that I gave them the bricks in the first place, and signed a contract with them that way
But you don't make a contract with the fetus to carry it to term.
Quote:
if the fetus dies by lack of 'hormones' then the mother would suffer from it as well -- it would, for normal people, be a tragedy
But it would essentially be a non-invasive abortion. And people can certainly feel terrible after an abortion, but still decide to have them. And some people don't.
Quote:
Sorry but that is based on the will of the people -- they can stop it.
But it would be against the "will" of the not-yet-conceived fetus!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 12:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Supposedly that I gave them the bricks in the first place, and signed a contract with them that way
But you don't make a contract with the fetus to carry it to term.
This is the problem, IF rape/accident/etc the contract of having the baby was never set.
If it was however: "I want a baby" "Lets have a baby" beforehand it is otherwise.
If somebody gets married and wants a baby they litteraly sealed the contract.
If a couple of lovers did have sex and used pills and it went wrong, the contract was never sealed on intented.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 01:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If somebody gets married and wants a baby they litteraly sealed the contract.
Not necessarily. And even if they do, the contract is between the wife and the husband, not the wife and the fetus.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There's a difference between being a human biologically and being a human socially.
The problem with socially is that it is so subjective -- unless of course you have a 'socialo-meter' to measure how social we are or how 'human' we are
Quote:
Tribes themselves are societies.
But what if they do not have 'IDs' or whatever or are not acknowledged by our society?
Quote:
Because it's potential life.
This is REALLY the last time I am going to repeat myself. There is a very BIG difference. If you can't see the difference already, answer me this.
Do you need "abortion" to stop sperm?
Do you need "abortion" to stop a fetus?
Really, it isn't that hard.
by this logic, it seems, "sperm" is not 'alive' because you don't even need to "stop" it! The fetus, on the other hand, well you get the idea...
Quote:
Okay, let's have a different metaphor. You plant a rosebush in your yard. Later, you decide that you don't like it, and tear it out. Can you do so?
Actually, the rosebush here should be planted in your yard, but affecting someone else in some way (the fetus). No, you can't tear it out just like that and expecting to follow the "live and let live" principle.
Just because you gave life to the baby/fetus does not give you the right to take it back. Do you think your mother can take your life right now just using that excuse to shake off the responsibility? I mean, you can go ahead and say you are social, a 'human' being, but that is hardly objective and in fact, not everyone agrees on that either
Quote:
"Future rights"? There's no such thing as future rights, only rights you have right now. That'd be like someone in jail saying, "You can't keep me here because I'll be released later and then you won't be allowed to keep me here!"
You missed the point. It's like someone in jail saying that you can't kill him/prevent him from being released -- because that would prevent him from getting his "future rights".
You see, it's not a temporary problem about the fetus, it's a permanent problem -- not like in your off-point example above (you can't keep me in here, which is temporary). I don't know why you don't understand that the only analogy that can apply to fetuses is death, because it's permanent.
Quote:
But you don't make a contract with the fetus to carry it to term.
But you make a contract to give him life. And you can't just take it back because you gave it -- again, can your mother take your life because she gave it to you? Don't tell me about social stuff, it's subjective.
Quote:
But it would be against the "will" of the not-yet-conceived fetus!
Eh? The baby, as far as I know, grows up, so I think he wants to be alive just like you and me. He needs a chance -- people commit suicide, yes, but hardly at 5 years old.
Besides, again I am not pro-babies, I am anti-pregnancy.
Quote:
This is the problem, IF rape/accident/etc the contract of having the baby was never set.
I am not talking about rape (which would be a bit different), but so-called "accidents" are made with prior consent. At least no "stranger" disturbed them.
You see, the contract is already sealed, saying: "I take the responsibility that I might have a child, because I am a mature person, so I need to take responsibilities for my 'fun' when it involves someone else". That's what says in the contract. You break it, you take responsibility.
What you don't understand is that in the fetus example, you are the one responsible for bringing the fetus into existence. You have a responsibility, as a grown-up person, to accept your mistakes, knowing them before-hand. You have the responsibility when it involves someone else (the fetus). That is the problem here -- you have a 'subjective' idea of what means to be "worthy" of the 'live and let live' principle. Once upon a time, black people were not worthy of that principle. So using the "Because that's how the law is" excuse does not work here. You use analogies all the time with things that don't involve someone else, but it does. By killing the fetus, which YOU brought into existence (so it's your fault!!!), you automatically remove him of that principle -- even if it would "get it" later in life.
For goodness' sake, do you think that we, as humans, are defined by 'qualities' that come and go, just like that?? Where are the equalities if we take these as a 'subjective' measure? If, biologically speaking (and please once again make the damn difference between sperm and fetus, SEE ABOVE, and my previous posts), we are not 'humans', then it means we are defined by qualities that appear/disappear just as society wants?
"All citizens are equal, as long as they are white"
"All citizens are equal, as long as they are 'born'"
blabla...
These are specific attributes that we assign to ourselves, and literally the law can say anything. Are we freaking defined by qualities that can grow or diminish, as 'worthy'?
Once again, and I'm repeating myself, it's not like the baby was conceived without you -- you are responsible for bringing him to life, deal with it like a grown-up would.
E.g: let's take one final example for me because I'm getting REALLY tired of this (btw don't talk about the "law" because it's not applicable and flawed). Suppose you drink alcohol (because, hey, they're fun you know?). And you are a grown-up. Suppose you take 'measures' against 'violence' (i.e hide your car keys somewhere so you don't drive while drunk, etc.).
But, somehow, however (as all precautions are never perfect), you still get to beat up a guy, even with all your precautions. (This is analogous to bringing life to the fetus).
Then, tomorrow, when you're thinking straight, you remember how you beat up that guy. Now you have to decide: shake off the responsibility like a kiddo and leave the country or ignore that guy, OR be responsible (knowing that it was your damn fault and he was involved) and go pay to treat that guy (i.e take care of him because it was your fault).
(of course, again, assuming that the law has nothing to do with this -- because in this way obviously it's not flawed, but with the fetus it is).
Seriously I have already said something similar to this pages ago. I am way over repeating myself here. So honestly, I am most likely not going to do it again. If repeating myself was the thing that kept this thread alive, then I think it's gonna die pretty soon.
Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh above, but if I am going to repeat myself one more time, I think my head's gonna blow 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:26 PM |
|
|
@Death: But what do you classify as "human"?
I myself classify a human at least if it has a brain and a nervous system. You however classify a human even as a 'just-starting' fetus. You see? This is subjective and thus means that you can't be sure that you are right, as well as me. So why should the people listen to your preferences?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I myself classify a human at least if it has a brain and a nervous system. You however classify a human even as a 'just-starting' fetus. You see? This is subjective and thus means that you can't be sure that you are right, as well as me. So why should the people listen to your preferences?
That'll take a while to explain and you'll not agree anyway. A few things to consider here:
1) when you need to take an action to prevent a cell because it will "OMG turn into a human", it's indirectly related to killing the human, so it is a 'human' in that respect, with all the definitions.
It wouldn't be a problem, listen carefully, if you weren't the one starting this process, because then no one would blame you for "stopping him" (because there is nothing to stop anyway) since you have absolutely nothing to do with it.
2) Ignoring (1) for the moment, my "preferences" are used with caution -- your preferences (abortion) are walking on a mined field. That is, you don't know if a mine's gonna explode or not (fetus is hurt). My preferences are that you stay still, so you can't be 'wrong'.
But this is of course ignoring (1), since (1) already gave a strong and understandable reason (I hope) for that.
Guy #1: "Hey, let's kill black people, they don't suffer anyway and are scum"
Guy #2: "How do you know? It would be better to leave things as is."
Guy #1: "Why should I listen to your preferences?"
Guy #2: "Because you're the one who's going to do something that might turn out wrong. You're the one taking the initiative."
Obviously this is quite off-the-point and I do not mean to take it as a 1 to 1 analogy -- in the example above it was even less of a problem than with the fetus, because in the above example, you are not responsible for bringing the black people to life. So in the fetus case, it's even worse
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) when you need to take an action to prevent a cell because it will "OMG turn into a human", it's indirectly related to killing the human, so it is a 'human' in that respect, with all the definitions.
Actually NO
If you let your water in the refrigerator does it mean that it is ice NOW? I don't think so.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually NO
If you let your water in the refrigerator does it mean that it is ice NOW? I don't think so.
If a future human (supposedly due to some natural cycles) would depend on that ice, for me it's called murder if you decide you don't want it.
BUT, in fact, it's not murder, if you did not have anything to do with that human -- it's called "I don't want to help you".
HOWEVER, you brought the fetus into existence, you are directly responsible for helping him -- otherwise it's murder.
If you see a beggar and you don't want to help him (and he dies because of this), it's not murder.
If you see a beggar that you brought to life and you don't want to help him survive, it's called killing (murder is usually twisted by the law)
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you need "abortion" to stop sperm?
Do you need "abortion" to stop a fetus?
Really, it isn't that hard.
by this logic, it seems, "sperm" is not 'alive' because you don't even need to "stop" it! The fetus, on the other hand, well you get the idea...
But the majority of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, I have a vague recolelction of it being 40-80%. That is a lot of murders right there... What was God thinking when he created the reproductive systems.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the majority of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, I have a vague recolelction of it being 40-80%. That is a lot of murders right there... What was God thinking when he created the reproductive systems.
Like I said, it's one thing to stop "artificially" so to speak (it's not really like that, but you get the idea), and another to just let it be stopped by itself.
There is a difference between fertilized eggs and fetuses. You don't need abortion for the former. You need for the latter. 
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 03:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But the majority of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, I have a vague recolelction of it being 40-80%. That is a lot of murders right there... What was God thinking when he created the reproductive systems.
What about the about of Sperm that does not reach the egg? What about all of them? What about girls having periode, that is +1 each month to "potential soul count" or?
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 03:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
But the majority of fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, I have a vague recolelction of it being 40-80%. That is a lot of murders right there... What was God thinking when he created the reproductive systems.
Like I said, it's one thing to stop "artificially" so to speak (it's not really like that, but you get the idea), and another to just let it be stopped by itself.
There is a difference between fertilized eggs and fetuses. You don't need abortion for the former. You need for the latter.
Yes, fetuses are embryos that are 8 weeks or older. But I am sure you are considering the embryo(=fertilized egg) human as well, but then again you say they are different. In what way? And at what stage is the death of a fertilized egg a death of a baby?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 03:15 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:18, 26 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
But I am sure you are considering the embryo(=fertilized egg) human as well, but then again you say they are different. In what way?
You use abortion on fetuses, not embryos. There is the difference of your "intervention" so to speak, something which you can be blamed for (and with reason).
The difference is this: think about the reason you need "abortion" on fetuses. The reason you need to do it is because... you know why; and that is the difference.
The baby can't be "stopped" without abortion, because it's already in 'progress' (I'm sorry for such loose terms I'm using). That is the difference 
@del_diablo:Quote:
What about the about of Sperm that does not reach the egg? What about all of them? What about girls having periode, that is +1 each month to "potential soul count" or?
Seriously man, do you even read what I type? I already stated:Quote:
if I am going to repeat myself one more time, I think my head's gonna blow
Here's a quote to see that I've repeated this way more than enough:Quote:
There is a very BIG difference [between sperm and a fetus]. If you can't see the difference already, answer me this.
Do you need "abortion" to stop sperm?
Do you need "abortion" to stop a fetus?
Really, it isn't that hard.
This was posted earlier.
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 03:26 PM |
|
|
Is there any Christian on the board? I would like to ask a question about abortion, but its Christianity - related.
____________
Result matters
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
