|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted June 26, 2008 07:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So I'm telling you: is the fetus not a human because that's how our religion (society) says? Is that God's word or it can be changed
And I'm telling you: is the fetus a human just because he WILL become one? As I already told you, if you leave water in the refrigerator, it is NOT ice yet (even though it would become later)
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 07:25 PM |
|
|
Read the article, then see objectively why the fetus is a human.
or do you mean that a human abruptly gets this 'property' of him?
besides I already replied to this 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 07:26 PM |
|
|
Why do you think the article is objective anyway?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 07:29 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:30, 26 Jun 2008.
|
It takes it from a 'basic-building-block' approach.
As you probably know, things in this life tend (in fact all) to have a 'continuous' nature -- stuff like being a human doesn't happen out of the blue when you already are formed and capable of living.
Besides not to mention that it explains very well the nature that 'personhood' is not a property (like e.g: a house).
EDIT: if it wouldn't be objective, it would end up with only a statement like mvass does "The fetus is not viable, period" and that's it.
at least it does give you food for thought...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 07:43 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
If you are a kid and your mother refuses to give you 'food', does that mean you are not going to be hurt at all?
But that is because I am already born and she has the responsiblity to take care of me, unlike with the fetus.
Quote:
You fix your mistakes by paying your debt to him -- that is, you gave him life, you look after it.
Wait - I gave him something, and now I owe him something too?  If I give you a thousand dollars, does that mean that I now owe you a thousand dollars?
Quote:
if I started the life, I have the right to also stop it?
If you started the process, but it has not yet produced a viable fetus, then yes.
Quote:
You start it, you take care of him.
Or "take care" of him. 
Quote:
What is reversed?
You were pregnant - now you're not pregnant any more.
Quote:
Are you telling me that if you give to a baby (a born baby) and you kill him, then you have just "reversed the process"??
Infanticide and abortion are different things.
Quote:
What's your idea of a 'fix'? The attacker to get off 'easy' and the victim to suffer (metaphorically)? Because that's what you do when you go for abortion -- it was your mistake, and still someone else got involved; don't expect that to be an easy 'fix'.
In your analogy, you have performed aggression upon the other guy. Here, if you don't want the fetus, the fetus initiates aggression on you.
TheArticle :
Quote:
There is no evidence scripturally for a preexistent human being apart from the body so my presumption is that when the sperm and ovum become a new independent human life the immaterial part of man is present as well.
What immaterial part?
Quote:
Having a soul is something that defines what the substance of a human being is.
???
Quote:
An acorn is an oak just as a mature oak tree is an oak
Him saying so doesn't make it true.
Quote:
If a human didn't have a soul it wouldn't be a human being because that's what human beings are.
And the proof of such a thing as a soul existing is... where?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wait - I gave him something, and now I owe him something too? If I give you a thousand dollars, does that mean that I now owe you a thousand dollars?
Hehe that's because you look at life differently. Parents have a responsibility to take care of you, apply the analogy here 
Quote:
You were pregnant - now you're not pregnant any more.
I know -- but, again, you fix your problem when instead you are the 'attacker', you are the one who made a mistake -- you should fix the problem of the one that was influenced by the mistake, the fetus in our case.
Quote:
In your analogy, you have performed aggression upon the other guy. Here, if you don't want the fetus, the fetus initiates aggression on you.
But it was you who performed something on the fetus (i.e gave him life), and you still claim as if you (the mother) are the one who was 'offended'??? If you get punished in the process, then it's ok, you made the mistake -- not the fetus, why should he be punished?
Quote:
What immaterial part?
Did you read the title? You see, again, it is not about religions. You are completely ignorant -- "What soul", etc... the article tries to get some meaning from the soul, at least from what people say about the soul.
It doesn't mean it's true, but then again, biologically the fetus is a human (and one that has to be stopped, make the difference between that and sperm).
Quote:
Him saying so doesn't make it true.
And you neither. But wait, you now contradict biology too -- because your religion is the best, right? (religion = social stuff or whatever)
Quote:
And the proof of such a thing as a soul existing is... where?
And the proof for 'viability' for a fetus is... where?
Don't get me wrong, the law can say whatever it wants, just as the Bible can say whatever it wants.
You can ignore the soul part but think about this: Where is your proof? A piece of text (the law) does not constitute proof (or are you saying the Bible has proof because it's a text too?). But you keep claiming your 'facts' as if they are better than the article's.
The obvious problem of course is when the article takes this logically as a stage just like any other 'stages' in life (teen, adult, baby, etc).. this means we are 'discriminatory' in a way -- why didn't you comment on that either?
You have to understand that the article is not 100% about the soul, which is why I think you have chosen only those parts from it, because those are 'unprovable' -- your statements are not based on facts either. But if we are to take discrimination, why would such an abrupt change like 'born' take place instantly?
The most important part in the article is when it discusses about personhood, not about the soul or religions.
Quote:
It is a mistake to talk about human beings as being potential persons. Personhood is part of the substance of being human, not a property a human develops later. Personhood isn't like hair color that you can change, it's not a property. It is part of the substance of what it is to be human. Trying to distinguish between the humanness and the personhood is looking at it in an inaccurate way. Personhood is part of the substance of being human, it doesn't develop at some other time. It strikes me as the most reasonable way to look at it is that when a being comes into being it is everything substantively that it is. There are properties that it requires. But everything else, its humanness, is there the moment it comes into being. If it comes into being as a separate living thing at the fertilization of the egg, which is what we understand biologically is the beginning of a new life, then at that point it is reasonable to conclude that it gets its soul.
So you see, it emphasizes both a 'possible' reasonable conclusion for the soul (for those that believe in it) and biology (woops I forgot you like society more than even that ).
If it were a religious text, it would use passages, so it isn't. But you know, when you can't find what to pick, you just choose statements that are out of topic with the soul and use the common question "what is the soul?" when you know that the subject is more to it than that.
That's what this article is about on the most part -- or are you supposed to use that kind of 'arguments' in absolutely any text in which you see the word 'soul'?
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
|
Proof doesn't matter. The law says when viability is and that is all that counts. Any other intrepetation is irrelevant.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Proof doesn't matter. The law says when viability is and that is all that counts. Any other intrepetation is irrelevant.
You're right, as it is now, of course abortions are legal. But this can be changed, and of course that's why we have this discussion anyway
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 09:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Parents have a responsibility to take care of you, apply the analogy here
Parents have a responsibility to take care of their children. And fetuses =/= children.
Quote:
you should fix the problem of the one that was influenced by the mistake
In the beating case, that guy's problem is your problem. In the pregnancy case, not so.
Quote:
you still claim as if you (the mother) are the one who was 'offended'???
Yes, as he is trespassing on the mother's body without her permission (as it was withdrawn or never given).
Quote:
the article tries to get some meaning from the soul, at least from what people say about the soul
Religion has nothing to do with biology. What do souls have to do with science?
Quote:
But wait, you now contradict biology too
I don't contradict biology - I'm arguing what the social application of biology should be. I don't deny that fetuses have human genes. But is that enough?
Quote:
The obvious problem of course is when the article takes this logically as a stage just like any other 'stages' in life (teen, adult, baby, etc).. this means we are 'discriminatory' in a way -- why didn't you comment on that either?
But the thing is, stages matter. We have different rights with age. For example, people under 21 can't drink alcohol, people under 18 can't vote, and people under 16 can't drive. And this makes sense. Our rights do change with age.
Quote:
which is what we understand biologically is the beginning of a new life
Which we understand is the start of the process to a life. Since you would hardly argue that a fertilized egg is viable.
Quote:
If it were a religious text, it would use passages, so it isn't.
Not necessarily. If it was a religious text that favored a specific religion, then yes. But if it was (as it is) a text that prefers religion over non-religion, then it wouldn't, since it wouldn't want to drive any religious people away.
---
But with all of our constant analogies, we have strayed from the subject. Fetuses have been compared to burglars, quadrapalegics, animals escaped from the zoo, skyscrapers, rosebushes, and people in jail. So I think that it's time to return to the roots of the argument.
1. Abortion is not murder, except when the fetus is viable.
1a. Abortion terminates a process which creats a viable fetus. It does not kill.
That is, a not-yet-viable fetus can hardly be considered alive, since it can't survive independently for a moment. Since being able to live is somewhat of a criterion for life.
1b. Abortion is not murder because it ejects a tresspasser from the mother's body.
That is, if a mother does not want the fetus there, simply by being it initiates tresspass. So the mother has the right to remove it. It is not important as to how it got there, unless it was by force. And force that is not directed at living humans or their property is not considered force (from a social perspective). As the fetus, prior to conception, did not belong to anyone, and is not yet a part of society in general (which is comprised of all born humans), force does not apply to it.
2. Legalized abortion is socially necessary.
2a. If abortion is illegal, women will seek more dangerous illegal abortions.
This is pretty simple. When you illegalize something that is relatively widely used, you are actually pushing it underground and creating an opportunity for various criminality to grow around it (see the War on Drugs).
2b. Abortion leads to a lower crime rate.
It stands to reason that mothers who want to abort their fetuses don't want them. And if they can't abort them and have them, they grow up in a bad atmosphere and are more likely to become criminals. This is especially so considering that most adult women who get abortions are poor.
2c. Making abortion illegal expands the power of government.
For the government to be able to keep abortion illegal effectively, it has to be able to find proof that a woman has gotten an abortion. And this leads to greater use of government power, which may in turn lead to the government getting more power, and becoming more authoritarian.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 09:45 PM |
|
|
I finlly know how to ask it:
Say god forbid death,and ur 14 year old doughter gets pregente,pre merrige,pree anything,and she has no idea whos the father. what would u do?
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 10:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, as he is trespassing on the mother's body without her permission (as it was withdrawn or never given).
I'm sorry to say, but it is with her permission, because you see, she brought him into her body forcefully
Quote:
Religion has nothing to do with biology. What do souls have to do with science?
Man, the article explains that fetuses are both from a biological point of view humans, and both from a soul point of view. It doesn't mix them, it only has 2 pros on it's side.
Quote:
I don't contradict biology - I'm arguing what the social application of biology should be.
And obviously this application is far better than religion or any kind of soul (not necessarily religious) or whatever?
Quote:
I don't deny that fetuses have human genes. But is that enough?
Well you have on one side people who claim they also have soul. But of course you're not listening to them, are you? Maybe we should listen to you? Why?
You know what's wrong with your approach? The fact that it is an abrupt change -- between the exact same organism (i.e it 'progresses' on it's own that's why you need abortion). But before that 'line' you mark, it has the same functions, only less developed. Of course, like I said, there is a difference between a process that has already started and one that needs you to do something in order for it to start. As long as we are in the former, there really should be no difference between it's stages (i.e viable, baby, etc).
Quote:
But the thing is, stages matter. We have different rights with age. For example, people under 21 can't drink alcohol, people under 18 can't vote, and people under 16 can't drive. And this makes sense. Our rights do change with age.
But the right to live is present in all of them and in fact should be present in all of them
Quote:
Which we understand is the start of the process to a life. Since you would hardly argue that a fertilized egg is viable.
Being viable is somewhat vague and subjective (depends on the person, etc). The idea is, it's still the same process. Drawing a line somewhere is not a good idea (like you do) because it will most probably be no better than other claims such as 'soul' or whatever you don't like.
Quote:
Not necessarily. If it was a religious text that favored a specific religion, then yes. But if it was (as it is) a text that prefers religion over non-religion, then it wouldn't, since it wouldn't want to drive any religious people away.
This text tries to explain that from both a biological and a soul point of view, the fetus is 'alive'.
What else do you want? So we should throw both of those point of views and listen to yours (which is subjective, if you will, like the soul (in your opinion))?
Quote:
1. Abortion is not murder, except when the fetus is viable.
Ok then it's ending a life.
Quote:
1a. Abortion terminates a process which creats a viable fetus. It does not kill.
Ends a life.
Quote:
That is, a not-yet-viable fetus can hardly be considered alive, since it can't survive independently for a moment.
Some people (not vegetables) need devices to breathe or digest or whatever, are they not alive? (you can consider the mother 'a device').
Quote:
1b. Abortion is not murder because it ejects a tresspasser from the mother's body.
That is, if a mother does not want the fetus there, simply by being it initiates tresspass. So the mother has the right to remove it. It is not important as to how it got there, unless it was by force. And force that is not directed at living humans or their property is not considered force (from a social perspective). As the fetus, prior to conception, did not belong to anyone, and is not yet a part of society in general (which is comprised of all born humans), force does not apply to it.
And we come back to the society argument, is it better than religion, I mean why?
Of course it is her fault that the baby is there -- analogies with tresspassing are a bit off. But I don't think you deny the fact that it is her fault that the baby got there?
Quote:
2. Legalized abortion is socially necessary.
Quote:
2a. If abortion is illegal, women will seek more dangerous illegal abortions.
This is pretty simple. When you illegalize something that is relatively widely used, you are actually pushing it underground and creating an opportunity for various criminality to grow around it (see the War on Drugs).
So now we should legalize very dangerous drugs as well? I mean, people that way will surely get them without criminality. But that also means the law will somewhat encourage the use of those dangerous drugs. Is that ok?
Seriously now, there's no doubt that some people will still get them, but in the end, much less per scale will be influenced because they will not be encouraged to do so.
Quote:
2b. Abortion leads to a lower crime rate.
It stands to reason that mothers who want to abort their fetuses don't want them. And if they can't abort them and have them, they grow up in a bad atmosphere and are more likely to become criminals. This is especially so considering that most adult women who get abortions are poor.
You don't get it. If you illegalize abortion, they will be discouraged of even getting pregnant, which makes it better.
Quote:
2c. Making abortion illegal expands the power of government.
For the government to be able to keep abortion illegal effectively, it has to be able to find proof that a woman has gotten an abortion. And this leads to greater use of government power, which may in turn lead to the government getting more power, and becoming more authoritarian.
Sometimes you have to investigate murder you know...
but of course this will also discourage other selfish mothers -- if they find out doing abortion "on their own way" is dangerous, they will probably be scared (from examples) of doing it themselves, thus discouraging it.
Quote:
I finlly know how to ask it:
Say god forbid death,and ur 14 year old doughter gets pregente,pre merrige,pree anything,and she has no idea whos the father. what would u do?
Ok, well first of all, it would be kinda the same news as if I found she takes drugs (for a long time). Three things here:
1) I will most probably be disappointed of her but also of myself as I couldn't teach her to be responsible enough.
2) She has to tell me who is the father, but I will not kill the baby, that would be, I dunno, selfish (i.e get rid of him because I already have trouble). At best I will make a deal with that other boy's parents, etc.
3) Do whatever it takes to make her learn much like i would if I would find out she takes drugs
Of course if she was raped it would be a different story, but I'm not talking about rape, now am I? (in that way, it would not be her fault, hence most of what I wrote above would not apply).
Oh do not take the impression that I am an authoritarian parent -- I let her do what she wants as long as she takes responsibility for it. If she is not ready, I do not let her do something, but I do warn her beforehand that she will need to learn how to be responsible. In fact, it's one of the better ways of educating your child -- if you give him/her responsible 'jobs' at an early age, he/she will learn faster and be mature much earlier. I've seen people at 23 years old more childish than those 17 years old 
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 10:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I've seen people at 23 years old more childish than those 17 years old
i take that as a compliment..
aham,so what if she CANT tell whos the father,ie ,no raped,but had a group sex after being intoxcicaed,the kid is well who knows where,there are millions to test dnd perenthood,and etc, and u have no i reapet no ways of growing it,as well as shame,and school and etc...
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 10:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
i take that as a compliment..
ok
Quote:
aham,so what if she CANT tell whos the father,ie ,no raped,but had a group sex after being intoxcicaed,the kid is well who knows where,there are millions to test dnd perenthood,and etc, and u have no i reapet no ways of growing it,as well as shame,and school and etc..
Well the shame won't wash away even if I would do the abortion. Also I would investigate it up to a point -- but most probably I would be blaming myself because I let her go there 'unprepared' (I mean to face the consequences). I am quite good with people (i.e I analyze them quite well) so I can usually know if she's ready or not.
As for school, I would attempt to use some social help or whatever (i hope you know what I mean). For me it's quite wrong to 'get rid' of the baby just to clean my hands off the trouble.
And most likely if this would happen, she will have a higher chance of doing it again than otherwise (because she got off easily, at least much easier than otherwise).
Thanks for the subject btw. 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 26, 2008 10:57 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:59, 26 Jun 2008.
|
@mvass
Quote:
That is, a not-yet-viable fetus can hardly be considered alive, since it can't survive independently for a moment.
How do you know this, and beyond that, does this really matter even if it's true? Consider: a fetus is a fetus up until the moment of birth. So, according to your statement, up until the moment of birth, the fetus cannot be self-sufficient and thus cannot be considered to be alive. If you take the case of a baby that has just been born: if you were to extract the fetus from the womb 10 minutes prior to birth, do you think the fetus would not survive? Furthermore, I would argue that AN INFANT cannot survive independently. Any infant would die quite soon without its parents to feed it and protect it; infants are quite helpless. Finally, I'm not even sure this point matters. People in tragic accidents may be put on life-support permanently or temporarily. Clearly these people cannot survive independently. People who need organ transplants cannot survive independently. People who are on dialysis cannot survive independently. Are they alive? Should we dispose of them? Your criterium for "alive" is weak.
Quote:
1b. Abortion is not murder because it ejects a tresspasser from the mother's body.
I'm still not sure how you defend the argument that a fetus is a trespasser. You can't call someone a trespesser that you invited in.
Quote:
It stands to reason that mothers who want to abort their fetuses don't want them. And if they can't abort them and have them, they grow up in a bad atmosphere and are more likely to become criminals. This is especially so considering that most adult women who get abortions are poor.
That's a poorly defensible argument. Even if you could find statistics to show it is TRUE, it doesn't really matter. Say 95% of fetuses that weren't wanted but which are carried to term become criminals. That leaves 5% that become productive members of society. So what you are saying is that it is ok to sacrifice 5% of productive members of society to exterminate the other 95% that are criminals. In general you could say that many poor people grow up in a bad atmosphere and are more likely to become criminals. Should we just exterminate all poor people because a large percentage of them become criminals?
Quote:
2c. Making abortion illegal expands the power of government.
For the government to be able to keep abortion illegal effectively, it has to be able to find proof that a woman has gotten an abortion. And this leads to greater use of government power, which may in turn lead to the government getting more power, and becoming more authoritarian.
A non-argument. To wit:
Making murders illegal expands the power of government.
For the government to be able to keep murder illegal effectively, it has to be able to find proof that a person has committed murder. And this leads to greater use of government power, which may in turn lead to the government getting more power, and becoming more authoritarian.
Certainly, you don't think we should legalize murder to limit the power of government, do you?
I think your arguments are weak - can you come up with anything better?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 12:14 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
I'm sorry to say, but it is with her permission, because you see, she brought him into her body forcefully
Forcefully? And it may have been conceived with her permission (or, rather, she was willing to have sex), but she may not wish it to be there any more.
Quote:
And obviously this application is far better than religion or any kind of soul (not necessarily religious) or whatever?
Yes. We all live in society, don't we?
Quote:
Maybe we should listen to you? Why?
Because what I suggest would be a socially useful approach. What good do souls do?
Quote:
But before that 'line' you mark, it has the same functions, only less developed.
Yes, nevertheless that is an important line. It is the line between its ability to live outside of the mother and not.
Quote:
But the right to live is present in all of them and in fact should be present in all of them
Yes, the right to live, when possible. But when it can't live, then...
Quote:
Being viable is somewhat vague and subjective (depends on the person, etc).
This is true, however you will hardly argue that a fertilized egg is viable. For convenience, people have divided pregnancy into three trimesters, however. I'm strongly against third-trimester abortions.
Quote:
So we should throw both of those point of views and listen to yours (which is subjective, if you will, like the soul (in your opinion))?
The seven criteria of life, from Wikipedia:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature. (Is a fetus able to maintain homeostasis by itself? No.)
2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. (Depends on the stage of the fetus.)
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. (Yes.)
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey. (Some)
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. (No.)
Quote:
Ok then it's ending a life
No, it's preventing one.
Quote:
Some people (not vegetables) need devices to breathe or digest or whatever, are they not alive?
Yes. But none of those devices are humans, are they?
Quote:
And we come back to the society argument, is it better than religion, I mean why?
Because we all live in society. Helping society has a benefit for us. Religion is far more questionable.
Quote:
Of course it is her fault that the baby is there -- analogies with tresspassing are a bit off. But I don't think you deny the fact that it is her fault that the baby got there?
No, of course not. But the analogy is not off. If there is a quadrapalegic on your lawn, you can remove him/her.
Quote:
So now we should legalize very dangerous drugs as well?
Maybe.
Quote:
But that also means the law will somewhat encourage the use of those dangerous drugs.
Permit and encourage are two different things. The law currently permits abortions. But does it encourage them?
Quote:
If you illegalize abortion, they will be discouraged of even getting pregnant
But what about those who still do?
Corribus:
Quote:
Consider: a fetus is a fetus up until the moment of birth.
I said not-yet-viable fetus.
Quote:
Furthermore, I would argue that AN INFANT cannot survive independently. Any infant would die quite soon without its parents to feed it and protect it; infants are quite helpless.
Yes, but it can survive without being hooked up to anything.
Quote:
People in tragic accidents may be put on life-support permanently or temporarily. Clearly these people cannot survive independently. People who need organ transplants cannot survive independently. People who are on dialysis cannot survive independently. Are they alive? Should we dispose of them?
This is different, since none of the devices that they use are human.
Quote:
You can't call someone a trespesser that you invited in.
You can, once you revoke your invitation.
Quote:
So what you are saying is that it is ok to sacrifice 5% of productive members of society to exterminate the other 95% that are criminals.
It is okay to let the mothers decide whether to do so, especially with this in mind.
Quote:
Certainly, you don't think we should legalize murder to limit the power of government, do you?
No, but abortion is not murder, and we shouldn't let the government do anything more than is absolutely necessary.
But by no means do I think that abortion is a good thing, and I strongly discourage its use. And I think that the government needs to stop funding abortion and starts teaching better sex ed and promoting protection.
And where are all of the other pro-choice people? Surely I'm not the only one!
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 12:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, as he is trespassing on the mother's body without her permission (as it was withdrawn or never given).
I'm sorry to say, but it is with her permission, because you see, she brought him into her body forcefully
*cough*
1. The fetus is non-gender in termology. Unless it is proven to be a girl or a boy using like ultra-sound, a fetus is nongender.
2. Stop assuming and abuse words like "he" "she". It is easy to speak using a non-gender form. You could use: "The pregnant", "the baby", "the fetus", etc.
Over to another issue............. the main topic..................
And what? I DO consider using pills to be safe sex, some people simply favours it over condoms. If the pregnant person wanted to be pregnant, the abortion would not happen unless it is because of medical reasons.
However we are talking about what leads to abortions: Accidents and rape.
Since we all agree on rape = allows abortion. Not more to discuss.
And using the above logic: Sex is only for getting pregnant unless condoms are involved.And that is WRONG. Simply there are more methods than condoms, but the condom is the safest in all terms.
If the pegnancy was by accident, then abortion is legal in my eyes. Accident = the few % the pill do not work, etc.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 03:54 AM |
|
|
@mvass
Quote:
Quote:
People in tragic accidents may be put on life-support permanently or temporarily. Clearly these people cannot survive independently. People who need organ transplants cannot survive independently. People who are on dialysis cannot survive independently. Are they alive? Should we dispose of them?
This is different, since none of the devices that they use are human.
Really? Organ donors aren't human?
Quote:
No, but abortion is not murder, and we shouldn't let the government do anything more than is absolutely necessary.
Erm.. I think you missed the point of what I was saying.
Quote:
And where are all of the other pro-choice people? Surely I'm not the only one!
Who said I'm not pro-choice? I may be pro-choice, but I'm also pro-taking-responsibility-for-your-actions.
Incidentally, you might find that conversations are more productive when you don't respond to posts on a sentence-by-sentence basis. In such cases, posts tend to merely be reactionary without a lot of real substance. So, instead of framing a logical, coherent argument that moves forward, quote wars rather just go around in circles. They're also harder for outsiders to follow, which limits the degree of input from other people.
Consider once in a while trying to write a post without quoting anything from previous posts. You'll be surprised how much more you have to think about what you are writing in that case. (I don't mean that as a personal criticism... I just am finding that a lot of threads here recently turn into sentence by sentence quote-a-thons that really have no substance at all, and that trying to post without using quotes once in a while might make you think of new ways to frame your arguments.)
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 04:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Really? Organ donors aren't human?
Well, they use a human organ, not an actual human. And besides, those organ donors volunteer to do it.
Quote:
I may be pro-choice, but I'm also pro-taking-responsibility-for-your-actions.
So am I.
Quote:
Incidentally, you might find that conversations are more productive when you don't respond to posts on a sentence-by-sentence basis.
Good point, I'll keep that in mind.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 11:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And where are all of the other pro-choice people? Surely I'm not the only one!
You are not, but I said what I had in mind on pages 11-15, and I donīt feel urge to repeat myself or react on every sentence. My opinion remains the same and I will eventually join discussion when somebody will show some interesting arguments. It would be fine if there was more members against abortions, because most active is TheDeath, and after four pages of discussion I somewhat know how he feels about theme.
____________
Result matters
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 01:46 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 14:18, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
And what? I DO consider using pills to be safe sex, some people simply favours it over condoms. If the pregnant person wanted to be pregnant, the abortion would not happen unless it is because of medical reasons.
However we are talking about what leads to abortions: Accidents and rape.
Since we all agree on rape = allows abortion. Not more to discuss.
That's just a very good point
The women that do abortions have the baby BY ACCIDENT, not because they wanted. Who do you think would be so stupid to have a willing unprotected sex and then make an abortion?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
