|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 27, 2008 08:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You know what? Black holes also "grow" (collect particles from outer space), does that mean they are alive?
First of all I don't think Black holes grow but I might be wrong. Secondly, black holes don't have human DNA 
Black holes don't multiply and will never grow to reproduce. In fact, they will never ever grow to a stage in which they agree with the list mvass quoted (from the wiki life article). A 2 year old doesn't adhere to those rules either, but he WILL. That is the difference. Big difference.
Quote:
The fetus also collects particles (that form hormones, etc) from the mother, so that doesn't mean it's alive 100% certain.
Then you aren't alive either since you collect particles when eating, etc... Thinking? How do you know a black hole doesn't think?
Quote:
Analyze yourself
I'm not the one saying the cavemen stuff. I don't want to analyze him because I don't want abortion anyway.
Quote:
I don't get it why you say biologically it's alive. If it grows does not mean it is alive!
That's the biological definition of life (because cells reproduce, for example). No matter how many examples and different angles I give here (plus my opinion) you will discard them as being alive anyway, since you have such a good definition of it. I give analogies, with 2 year olds, 10 year olds, and -9 month year olds. They exhibit similar biological reactions (let's say cells that multiply for example). So unless you say that we are not alive biologically, then the fetus is alive biologically just as you or me are alive biologically.
Can a 2 year old reproduce? No, but he/she will be.
Can a fetus do whatever an adult does? No, but he/she will be able to.
So what do virii do anyway, except to 'grow' and reproduce (like cells)? Are they not alive biologically?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 09:42 PM |
|
|
Corribus:
Quote:
(1) You think a fetus can live on its own after 12 weeks?
Well, if hooked up to various machines, maybe.
Quote:
(2) What's the difference between 12 weeks and 11.5? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Well, 12 weeks is definitely erring on the side of caution.
Quote:
So, the reason people keep catfighting over abortion is because any solution is either (A) completely unreasonable or (B) completely arbitrary.
So, what do you suggest, then?
TheDeath:
Quote:
As long as they don't get in your way, I presume, like the fetus, right?
How many times do I have to tell you that the non-viable fetus doesn't have human rights? It doesn't have any rights.
Quote:
People discriminate, does not matter what the difference is, they will.
So we're going to have "viable-only" businesses, "viable-only" drinking fountains, separate schools for the viable and non-viable... sure.
Quote:
What is this supposed to mean? Some virii or bacteria are less developed than a fetus and you're telling me they can't live?
Whether viruses are alive is a subject to debate (since viruses alone can't reproduce). But it isn't a question of complexity but a question of viability. You don't have to be complex to be viable, and you don't have to be viable to be complex.
Quote:
Actually I do, you see yours is based more on economics and profit -- as long as a person has no job (even though the person might, for example, be altruistic, but that is not a 'job') you think he/she is lazy and does not deserve any kind of sympathy from the big bosses with money. At least, it's what you said when you explained about the 'less fortunate' ones.
Maybe this belongs better in "Moral Philosophy" or "Economics", but I don't see what you're getting at.
Quote:
So it means your mother can end your life whenever she wants?
No, because I am already born.
Quote:
You have to live with the consequences, the guy can sue you for shooting him in the head (even though you brought him back to life in this example).
Well, that's true, since you violated his rights by maiming him. But fetuses are different.
Quote:
See the priests or people that meditate around? They have that 'emotional benefit'
Well, that is an emotional benenfit, but sometimes that should be sacrificed in favor of not deluding yourself.
Quote:
Why is the power plant not an actual part?
Because you have power plants without this device, but you don't have mothers without wombs. (At least, not mothers who bear their own children.)
Quote:
why should this be the line and not, for example, texts like the Bible
Because this makes sense and is actually useful.
Quote:
So basically you're telling me in Heaven you need a brain to think
Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church.
Quote:
Actually no, of course it can't survive on it's own -- a bacteria can't survive without energy and food as well.
That depends by what we mean by "on its own". By that definition, only autotrophs would be able to live on their own, and maybe not even them (since they need chemicals).
Quote:
Actually, parents have an obligation to support their child
What kind of obligation? Social? Legal? Religious? The way I see it (outside of the legal aspect), parents support their children out of altruism (sort of) (and parental instinct, which generates emotional benefit).
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Anakrom
Known Hero
(Scroll) Out of the blue
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 10:54 PM |
|
|
Side question : Do you eat eggs? Eggs are fetuses after all and gathering eggs can be considered as mass abortion.
____________
Result matters
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 12:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Side question : Do you eat eggs? Eggs are fetuses after all and gathering eggs can be considered as mass abortion.
I don't think that'd count, since the chicken eggs that we eat are unfertilizied.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 12:10 AM |
|
|
Even if they weren't, it's still irrelevant.
____________
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
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 01:18 AM |
|
|
@death: how can you take any argument religously,if its metter of opinion,ie realigion of mine might be diff from yours,thus its pointless.
also what about your 15 year old son gets hes 18 year old girlfrinde pregented,and HER perents make her abort will u force ur son into it?
if your doughter who is 14 decides to go abort will be against it? wont you let her do the choice?
and basterd childern? to grow with hate? or go into adoption?
@mvs: Despite that were on the same side i wont say abort is a poor people's choice,couse more rich poeople who want to avoide basterd childern or any childern goes throuw it,couse it can get expensive.
To sum it all up.
Who are we to judge who can and who can't?
will you call those people murderes?
Everyone just do it there way,i wont call you an idiot if u wont do it,and i wont call u if u do.
If the perents have no means of rising the child its better left unborn then taken by the authoritys,to save it of horible expearnce,but thats just me.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 01:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Despite that were on the same side i wont say abort is a poor people's choice,couse more rich poeople who want to avoide basterd childern or any childern goes throuw it,couse it can get expensive.
It's true that rich people have more to lose, and also that they can afford it more, but they also tend to be better educated, and that demographic certainly has less abortions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 11:22 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 11:53, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
How many times do I have to tell you that the non-viable fetus doesn't have human rights? It doesn't have any rights.
How many times do I have to tell you that is only your society model -- is it based on biological facts? Nope. Is it better than religion? Nope.
Frankly I'm not in the mood for quote wars right now, so i'll reply and repeat what I said earlier in a different fashion.
Not all countries are the same, as much as not all religions are the same, even though you imply that a fetus doesn't have rights as if you can prove this to your advantage. How many times do I have to tell you that the law is not the Bible? Talking about preferences
You constantly say that you are born. What does that mean? Is that a biological stage? Or more precisely, is it an abrupt change where the fetus suddenly becomes 'alive' or not? And might I dare ask again, is what you say better than a religion in any way? (I'm not saying the religion is better, but neither is yours).
I have been trying to explain over and over again, with both biological and religion AND my own opinion (much as you use your own opinion) arguments why a fetus is pretty much alive in any sense of the word. Does it have human DNA? You bet. From religion it also has soul. Does it have human rights? Questionable: you see, depends on the religion (err, society model, sorry to mistake it ). I say it does, you say it doesn't. Country A says it does, country B says it doesn't. Is this reliable? At least, if you are asking "proof" for the soul -- might I dare ask you, where is the human right, where's the evidence? Surely if the soul doesn't have any evidence (apart from a piece of text in the Bible), this one doesn't have either. I can't see it, apart from a piece of text that varies (much like different Bibles/Quran/etc). Or are you implying that we should follow your piece of text and ignore the other (e.g: Bible)?? It's ok, you know, 'organized evil religions' do that too -- you call the people sheep
What about bacteria? Are they not alive? Surely, biologically they are. Are fetuses alive? You bet, they are much more advanced than bacteria. So basically, I've proved my first argument, that biologically they are alive -- something which seems to have taken me 2 or even more pages to explain. Now comes the tricky part: is the biological definition reliable? Does it say anything about human rights? If you take it like that, you know the social model also did not allow black people to have rights -- because it's damn subjective, no better than a religion you despise. You see, I disagree with it, a lot of people do, and different countries have different 'social models' (aka religions).
If you are going to use arguments like 'viability' in your favor, you have to use at least one non-subjective argument for it, or for that matter, explain reasonably why. I take analogies from normal 'born' humans, that the difference between a 2 year old and a 6 year old is similar to the difference between a fetus and a 2 year old -> both are in a stage of 'growing'. This analogy is another argument for me.
Another analogy would be the fact with accidents. You hit someone's car (knowingly you had a chance to, supposedly), his 'economy' has a priority well above yours, in this case since you are the offense. Most likely, giving him money to repair the car will not be enough -- he can charge you with extra money (or sue you) because you have to pay some kind of 'debt' for troubling his life. That is why, with a fetus, you also have to pay your extra 'debts' to it (apart from giving it life).
And as for the example with torture, that is another good one. If you give life to someone but then let it freeze to death, or die starving, you are torturing him -- if he obviously can't do it by himself. Another solid argument. That is why she has an obligation, or the fetus/society can sue her for 'torturing' or 'troubling the fetus' life' (exactly my point for illegalizing abortion).
In case you don't agree with all the reasonable arguments I gave above, fine, but please get yourself reasonable ones except the 'viability' thing you seem to worship (do I need to tell you again how arbitrary and subjective that is?). Besides, you can't even define that precisely, as in a precise amount of time, but only arbitrarily like Corribus said. What you constantly do, however, is counter all my reasonable arguments which are based on no society model (because they vary from country to country) with only ONE society model that fits to your beliefs. Can I use religion to counter yours too? Why not, I mean, it's sort of a society model in itself. At best, the only place where you could use those arguments would be against the 'soul' stuff, but even there it would be a pointless debate, much because I can also have my own society model.
So I am most likely not going to repeat myself all over again any time soon. But it sometimes shocks me to see that I can't explain well enough or you don't read my posts very well. Whatever the cause, I think we're beating up a dead horse. There is nothing new in this post, it's the same stuff I've been constantly repeating for the last three pages. Why are we having this discussion anyway if you keep on to your society model with 'fetuses don't have rights'. To me it sounds like a debate with a religious extremist -- talking about open-mindedness
Quote:
Whether viruses are alive is a subject to debate (since viruses alone can't reproduce).
Can a 2 year old reproduce? Are they not alive NOW? (hey a lot of arguments have been used against me because, you know, it's now NOW at the moment, I'm trying to use those back against them).
Quote:
Well, that is an emotional benenfit, but sometimes that should be sacrificed in favor of not deluding yourself.
Who are you to judge what's delusional and what's not? Besides, I thought you let people whatever they wanted to do as long as they do not impose it on others without their consent. Talking about being an authoritarian.
EDIT: please do not try to reply with a lot of quote wars taking every argument into a quote -- I'm getting tired of that already and frankly I don't think why I am repeating myself so many times.
@antipaladin:Quote:
how can you take any argument religously,if its metter of opinion,ie realigion of mine might be diff from yours,thus its pointless.
How can you take any argument based on society models (e.g: human rights)? If it's a matter of opinion, i.e my society model might be different than yours, thus it's pointless.
Quote:
also what about your 15 year old son gets hes 18 year old girlfrinde pregented,and HER perents make her abort will u force ur son into it?
I don't really get what you mean, but does that mean that I should force my son to stop the abortion? Why -- for me it's a question of whether the state/country takes care of it. If my son's girlfriend wants to kill someone, does that mean I have to force my son to stop her? Maybe, he will do it out of love. But then I guess the state/country should be the ones 'investigating'.
Quote:
if your doughter who is 14 decides to go abort will be against it? wont you let her do the choice?
Again that is a difficult question (especially if it's regarding rape), but I already answered that anyway. The problem is that I do not see abortion (with the woman's fault) as a choice much as I do not see murder as a choice, if it's her fault! (i.e not rape). Why is today's society so full of young people getting pregnant? Because they know that whatever they do, they don't have a responsibility for that, they can get off easily with abortion, etc.. Most know can't be sued for something like that (in cases where it's not rape but it's "something new"). This disrespect for responsibility has grown only because of us. We are degenerating because they expect (as kids) an 'easy fix' for every problem they have out of sheer irresponsibility, one after the other. Here's the problem: if she gets the idea that is an easy fix, she has a higher chance of doing it again -- and probably won't even tell me. Children these days are growing more and more irresponsible, and when something 'truly' bad happens that has no 'easy fix' (like abortion), they become 10 year olds, even though they could be 20 -- they grow without a sense of maturity to be responsible for your actions and expect the consequences with a fair sense of life being unfair.
Quote:
and basterd childern? to grow with hate? or go into adoption?
To be honest, I don't know what's worse -- growing with hate or living only a few moments (until the mother decides to kill him/her). Depends if he wants to commit suicide, many people do, but most are beyond age 5 for example
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 01:26 PM |
|
|
Ok, I'll address two more FACTS (not subjective) and then I'm off from this thread, since TheDeath seems to be repeating the same stuff over and over again.
@Death:
1) Person A has absolutely NO obligation to help Person B, even if Person A gave life to Person B (according to your saying: "Everyone wants to live", and thus Person B owes Person A something for giving him life, not the other way around!). This help includes giving Person B food (or hormones, in case of the fetus)
2) When you make an accident, you first try to REVERSE its effect (if it's reversible) and THEN try to fix/repair it. In our case, getting pregnant is the accident, and you reverse it by making an abortion. Besides, making an abortion DOES NOT kill the fetus, you simply don't "feed" it any more. The fact that it dies is just a secondary effect - and again, you are NOT obligated to help/give it "food".
And please, your analogy with "I get drunk and then beat a guy up" is COMPLETELY WRONG. That's because, according to your saying, "Everyone wants to live", and thus giving life is a positive action - the fetus is GRATEFUL that I give it life, but the guy is not grateful that I beat him up. See where your analogy falls apart? Also, again, I am NOT obligated to help/"feed" the fetus, so I CAN make an abortion.
A MUCH better analogy would be like this: I save someone's life, whether by accident or not (comparable to giving him life, since otherwise he would be dead), but after the event he becomes paralyzed and thus depends on me to give him food. Do you think I'm obligated to give him food? Of course not! (please, don't start with "not giving him food = torture"; let's consider that he experiences a painless death without food, since a fetus - as it has no brains or neural system - experiences a painless death when making an abortion). And NO, suffering a painless death is NOT a torture, as it is exactly as if I didn't save him in the first place. (and if you don't agree, who are you to say what's torture and what's not?)
And don't start with the question "Did the fetus ask to live?", because according to your saying, "Everyone wants to live", and this makes the question pretty redundant don't you think?
And here's proof that you said "Everyone wants to live" so that you won't think I made this up:
Quote:
because he wants to live (who doesn't).
It's YOUR quote from one of your posts on page 18 of this same thread.
Besides, even if the fetus doesn't want to live, do you think it's better to not make an abortion and let it live against its will? It's THAT how you "fix" the problem? Seems the worst choice possible for me
I started the process, the fetus doesn't want -> PROCESS MUST BE STOPPED
I started the process, the fetus wants -> I have no obligation to "feed" it and thus I can make an abortion.
You can ONLY blame me if the fetus doesn't want to live (but according to your saying this is false - not to mention that you can't ask a fetus if it wants to live or not because it can't THINK) AND only because I gave it life in the first place, NOT because I make an abortion End of Story
To prevent some misunderstandings, I'll explain fact #1 a little more: Person A can't do whatever he wants with Person B! This means that Person A can't make a negative action on Person B (beating, experimenting, killing, etc). However, Person A has absolutely NO obligation to help/give food to Person B, unless Person A did a negative action on Person B, but giving life is a positive action, since "Everyone wants to live".
So you see? The only way to prove your arguments is to tell me "You are obligated to help/feed someone/the fetus!", but that would make you an authoritarian since you impose your preferences on others against their will
I can also say "You are not allowed to have fun! EVER!", but are the people really obligated to listen to me?
And there's one last question I want to answer: Yes, the fetus is alive because of me, but that's a positive action ("Everyone wants to live") and thus the fetus somehow owes me something. However, I have no obligation to "feed" it, so I can make an abortion. There are 4 possible outcomes:
1.The fetus wants to live
a) I don't make an abortion, and everyone is happy.
b) I don't want to help/"feed" it any longer and decide to make an abortion. There is nothing wrong except that the fetus won't be happy, but I'm NOT obligated to make everyone happy, am I? (I'm not obligated to help every beggar I see, right?)
2.The fetus doesn't want to live
a) I don't make an abortion and let it live against its will. This is the worst possible choice IMO
b) I make an abortion and everyone is happy. You can blame me for giving life to the fetus in the first place (since it was against its will), but NOT for making the abortion. Since this topic is about abortion, this isn't worth discussing.
And please don't quote only parts of this post! You either reply to ALL of it, or don't reply AT ALL! Thank You
PS: If you reply with: "You're wrong! You do have the responsibility to "feed" the fetus even though you already gave it life", I'll give you the anwer right now: "Who says it? The law (nope)? the religion? YOU? Those are all subjective as you said, so let's just let the people do whatever they want (regarding the abortion) and end this debate, shall we?
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 01:36 PM |
|
|
While I do believe that the woman should have the right to decide about their own body...
I also believe that it is a cop out with a few exceptions. The exceptions being rape, or the child endangering their own life. Yes it is traumatic, but it is a lot easier then careing for a child for 18 years. If you want to go out and party a lot and end up having sex a lot..why punish a child because of it?
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 01:39 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 13:42, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
1) Person A has absolutely NO obligation to help Person B, even if Person A gave life to Person B (according to your saying: "Everyone wants to live", and thus Person B owes Person A something for giving him life, not the other way around!). This help includes giving Person B food (or hormones, in case of the fetus)
Let me re-quote some posts back:
Quote:
Quote:
1) You give life to someone
2) You torture him
3) That someone wants to suicide to end the pain; is it grateful for that?
The thing is, you are not allowed to torture him. That's the problem with your example above. If you got rid of (2), you are not obligated to help the guy reconsider about the suicide (let's suppose he still wants)
I wrote the inner quote, you replied to it. Basically what you are saying is that, giving life to someone knowing he is not able to move/feed himself even if he would want, is not torture??
Have you ever starved to death? Are you supposed to be grateful for your mother if she lets you starve that way? This is torture in a way.
Quote:
2) When you make an accident, you first try to REVERSE its effect (if it's reversible) and THEN try to fix/repair it. In our case, getting pregnant is the accident, and you reverse it by making an abortion. Besides, making an abortion DOES NOT kill the fetus, you simply don't "feed" it any more. The fact that it dies is just a secondary effect - and again, you are NOT obligated to help/give it "food".
Now i get it why you people don't get my analogies. The mother is not the victim of the accident, the fetus is. You reverse the effect by taking his life? That is killing him. You say that without you he wouldn't even be alive.
There is a very BIG difference between not living at all and living a few moments (no happiness) and then dying. The latter applies more to torture (not necessarily physical torture).
By the way, if you reverse the effect and repair his car, you still owe him the fact that you did it and perhaps disturbed his life -- in the fetus' case it's even worse -- it's like bringing him to the hospital (i.e suffering and all that!). And you are telling me that to repair it you simply 'treat him' to the hospital? He suffered because of you. I think, since the fetus is not alive anymore, you have to be sentenced for some years -- to 'compensate' for that suffering, if you know what I mean
Quote:
Do you think I'm obligated to give him food? Of course not! (please, don't start with "not giving him food = torture"; let's consider that he experiences a painless death without food, since a fetus - as it has no brains or neural system - experiences a painless death when making an abortion). And NO, suffering a painless death is NOT a torture, as it is exactly as if I didn't save him in the first place. (and if you don't agree, who are you to say what's torture and what's not?)
You know, you claim that he does not suffer. What I say? I decide what's torture and what's not?
Sorry but if you want to take it like that, let's see.. you let him starve to death, maybe you should starve to death too -- this way, no one is the judge of what's torture and what's not since what it experiences we experience as well.
You are the one who judges he deserves a different 'treatment' (that is, you claim he does not suffer).
Yes everyone wants to live, but that means to live, not to end up dead in 12 weeks
I'll ask you something though. Does a mother have the right to kill her baby? Let him starve? (baby not fetus)
Basically if you say that is a different case we're going back at the point where the 'society model' of 'human rights' is subjective.
@Mytical:Quote:
If you want to go out and party a lot and end up having sex a lot..why punish a child because of it?
Exactly 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 01:47 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 13:49, 28 Jun 2008.
|
@Death:
Did you understand my post, hmm?
Because what you posted now about torture was already answered. NO, it is NOT torture if you let a fetus die of "starvation", because it doesn't feel pain, etc.
Let me ask you something: I save someone's life (or give him life) temporarily, but in the next seconds I also have to do something to save it permanently, otherwise he would die without pain, just like he would die if I didn't do anything. The question: Do you think I'm obligated to do the next "thing" to save him? NO. Without me, he would have died anyway. I can do it if I WANT, but under no obligation.
Quote:
There is a very BIG difference between not living at all and living a few moments (no happiness) and then dying. The latter applies more to torture (not necessarily physical torture).
There is no such thing as non-physical torture. Torture is only physical.
Quote:
Does a mother have the right to kill her baby? Let him starve?
Yes, since she is under no obligation to feed the baby, she has the right to let him starve (not that any mother would do it though)
@Mytical
Quote:
If you want to go out and party a lot and end up having sex a lot..why punish a child because of it?
I'm not saying it's a "good" decision to make an abortion, since the fetus will not be happy, but it's definitely not a "evil" decision (it's somewhat "neutral"). Now think, am I evil if I do not feed every beggar I see on the street? No, but I'm not good either.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 01:55 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 13:55, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Because what you posted now about torture was already answered. NO, it is NOT torture if you let a fetus die of "starvation", because it doesn't feel pain, etc.
How do you know? I mean, I wasn't talking about pain, but about suffering. What Corribus said is that it is completely arbitrary -- you have no idea when he feels pain and when does not -- so basically what gives you the right to do it if you don't know whether he feels or not? (having a 'neuron' is a completely arbitrary time too!)
Besides, like I said countless times, do you have the right to kill me if I don't feel pain, if you are e.g: my mother? (i'm not a fetus in this example)
Quote:
Let me ask you something: I save someone's life (or give him life) temporarily, but in the next seconds I also have to do something to save it permanently, otherwise he would die without pain, just like he would die if I didn't do anything. The question: Do you think I'm obligated to do the next "thing" to save him? NO. Without me, he would have died anyway. I can do it if I WANT, but under no obligation.
Interesting, there is, again, a very big difference here because if you didn't even get pregnant, he would not even die -- you can't have death without creation. I'd say it's a whole lot better to not live at all than to die without any moment of happiness/accomplishment/feeling free/whatever. You would be quite obligated to feed him if by saving him you also made him dependent on you. Because he now relies on you and you saved his life does not mean you can do whatever you want with him. For example, you can let him starve -- that is far worse than the initial 'death' he would have got (because, I repeat, the baby doesn't even 'die' if you don't conceive him).
If he would have agreed it is a whole different matter -- but he is forced to be saved, you see? He is forced to be saved of the first death, and then suffer a more terrible one (because he is dependent on you).
Quote:
There is no such thing as non-physical torture. Torture is only physical.
In my book, emotions are not physical (without going into any religious soul).
Quote:
Yes, since she is under no obligation to feed the baby, she has the right to let him starve (not that any mother would do it though
Great, so now we can lock our children in the basement and let them starve, it'll be an 'ok' model of society?
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 01:59 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 14:00, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Oh my God... you don't seem to get it
Quote:
Besides, like I said countless times, do you have the right to kill me if I don't feel pain, if you are e.g: my mother?
You don't get it do you? I CAN'T KILL YOU, that's a negative action, even if it is painless. But I CAN LEAVE YOU TO DIE, that's a whole different matter!
Quote:
I'd say it's a whole lot better to not live at all than to die without any moment of happiness/accomplishment/feeling free/whatever.
Yes, you'd say, but I don't. Dying is not something that's "OMG, the torture comes!"
Quote:
In my book, emotions are not physical (without going into any religious soul).
Obviously I disagree torture is an emotion. It is an ACTION.
Quote:
Great, so now we can lock our children in the basement and let them starve, it'll be an 'ok' model of society?
You see, you CAN'T LOCK THEM. How many times I must repeat myself? You don't do anything -> someone dies, IT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE!
Anyway, if you still don't get it, I don't know how to explain this any better. I'm out of any quote-wars, seriously.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 02:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't get it do you? I CAN'T KILL YOU, that's a negative action, even if it is painless. But I CAN LEAVE YOU TO DIE, that's a whole different matter!
But to do the abortion, you do something (i.e deprive the fetus with hormones).
It's like this: you force someone who has no limbs into your home. Then you decide to kick him out, he does not want (not that he could), so you have to kill him. This is crime because he had no choice.
The fetus is dependent on you because of you. That is why you have a responsibility towards him -- because you know he is dependent and you force him to be so
Quote:
Yes, you'd say, but I don't. Dying is not something that's "OMG, the torture comes!"
Scenario A: you know in 3 hours you will be tortured and you could either suicide or let it go on it's way.
Scenario B: you know in 3 hours you will be tortured and you can't do anything, because someone doesn't let you suicide. That is torture on that someone's behalf.
The fetus applies to the second case here, because he is brought to life (i.e he can't choose to 'suicide' in that way) only to be tortured later.
Quote:
Obviously I disagree torture is an emotion. It is an ACTION.
What? From the victim's point of view, it is an emotion.
Oh, and you can have emotional torture too (e.g your son died and you loved him).
Quote:
You see, you CAN'T LOCK THEM. How many times I must repeat myself? You don't do anything -> someone dies, IT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE!
Ah, but you do lock the fetus inside your body. Yes, you do it, not him/her/it. You lock him, and then let him starve to death. It does not get into your 'basement' by itself, you bring it.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 02:13 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 14:13, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
But to do the abortion, you do something (i.e deprive the fetus with hormones).
Ah, you see, it is not that way.
I do something to the fetus in that I give it hormones. This is an action, even though it is done automatically.
And I can stop it whenever I want.
Quote:
It's like this: you force someone who has no limbs into your home. Then you decide to kick him out, he does not want (not that he could), so you have to kill him. This is crime because he had no choice.
The negative action again: you kill him. If you would leave him out to starve, that's not your problem.
Quote:
you know in 3 hours you will be tortured and you can't do anything, because someone doesn't let you suicide. That is torture on that someone's behalf.
But the baby isn't tortured if you make an abortion! Do I really have to repeat this to infinity?
Quote:
Oh, and you can have emotional torture too (e.g your son died and you loved him).
That's not torture. It's more like sadness.
Quote:
Ah, but you do lock the fetus inside your body. Yes, you do it, not him/her/it. You lock him, and then let him starve to death. It does not get into your 'basement' by itself, you bring it.
This is the best stuff you said really. Yes, I lock it inside and THAT'S THE PROBLEM! That's why I abort it, to get it out! You see? What you said is just a very good argument for me
It's not any of my busieness that it dies of starvation without being "locked" in the room. In fact, you COULD accuse me of locking it up. Again, you CAN blame me for bringing the fetus into existence, but NOT for abortion. Since this topic is about abortion, this isn't worth discussing.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 02:22 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:24, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Ah, you see, it is not that way.
I do something to the fetus in that I give it hormones. This is an action, even though it is done automatically.
There's a reason it's done automatically, and as far as I know, 'automatic' things like breathing (i.e not 'conscious' ones) are not considered actions and you can't sentence someone for that.
Quote:
The negative action again: you kill him. If you would leave him out to starve, that's not your problem.
Ok, so you let him starve. Outside, he would have got to eat perhaps (i.e not suffer). Inside, where you forced him, you need to take care of him, otherwise it would be your fault cause you forced him.
It's common sense. You 'steal' an innocent animal from the wild (where it could have got food, etc), you have to take care of it. Because you see, you are responsible for its starvation, in the wild it was ok. This is not (I think) in a law but is common sense.
(of course replace 'animal' with human)
Quote:
But the baby isn't tortured if you make an abortion! Do I really have to repeat this to infinity?
He is, biologically, a human and a living 'creature' (see above with bacteria). So, what reason do you have to believe he is not alive? Or maybe you say he has no nervous system -- but then again, you have no way of knowing when a neuron develops, etc.. I have all analogies with all humans and stages in life here and I have already explained them.
The only thing you have is your statement which you repeat to infinity. I can use a similar statement as well but that wouldn't lead to a constructive discussion!
Quote:
That's not torture. It's more like sadness.
A very big impact on you, I meant. It's not just some sadness, some people can't even 'get their grip' on and need some special psychologic treatment, and you're telling me it's just 'sadness'? 
Quote:
This is the best stuff you said really. Yes, I lock it inside and THAT'S THE PROBLEM! That's why I abort it, to get it out! You see? What you said is just a very good argument for me
I doesn't work that way. Let's suppose you have children. They like the 'life' in the basement -- but you force them there because they have no choice (you conceive the fetus).
Then you decide to let them starve. You don't simply "get them out", you torture them. I'm talking about the means, not about the goal.
To not misinterpret my analogy again, here's how it goes:
Basement = the mother's body
Fetus = some human that has no choice but to accept your 'offer' of bringing him into the basement
Let him starve in the basement = Deprive it of hormones
And even if he had a choice, it's still a crime if he does not know what is next (i.e torture). But of course since we can't communicate with a fetus apart from common sense (drawing analogies from OURSELVES, not classifying them as we please!), then the above holds.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 02:32 PM |
|
|
This is really pointless... you are either too narrow-minded or simply don't understand
Quote:
Ok, so you let him starve. Outside, he would have got to eat perhaps (i.e not suffer). Inside, where you forced him, you need to take care of him, otherwise it would be your fault cause you forced him.
Can you READ? I said "If you would leave him out to stare, that's not your problem"
Quote:
I doesn't work that way. Let's suppose you have children. They like the 'life' in the basement -- but you force them there because they have no choice (you conceive the fetus).
Then you decide to let them starve. You don't simply "get them out", you torture them. I'm talking about the means, not about the goal.
I don't care if they like the basement, as long as it is MINE, I can throw them out!
But the interesting part is:
Quote:
but you force them there because they have no choice
Yes, that's the problem, NOT the abortion. The problem is that I create the fetus in the first place. What if it doesn't want, hmm? (Don't tell me "IT DOES WANT" because, first, you don't know, and second, if it really DOES want, then it should be prepared for an eventual abortion if I don't want to feed it any longer)
The thing is, you say it wants to live, then IT WANTS TO LIVE! Even as a fetus. But if I don't want to "feed" it any more, I can make an abortion, and the fetus dies. It won't be happy, BUT that's not an evil act since I don't do a negative action (like killing it). It is also NOT a good action since good means to help everyone.
I'm not obligated to help any beggar at all, and if I don't do it I'm not EVIL, but not GOOD either. Not all of us want to be "good" you know
Again, the creation of the fetus is the only "forced" action and is thus somewhat evil if the fetus doesn't want to live. However, to "undo" this "negative effect" means to not conceive any fetuses at all (since we don't know what fetuses want to live or not), and I think you know what that means...
This is REALLY the last time I reply in this, because it's the same thing I have said earlier. Is there a point in creating 100 posts with the same idea?
Have fun "fighting" with mvass
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 02:44 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 14:45, 28 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
Can you READ? I said "If you would leave him out to stare, that's not your problem"
But your body is not out there. He does not starve out there. He starves in YOUR body. See my analogy with the basement.
Quote:
I don't care if they like the basement, as long as it is MINE, I can throw them out!
Ah, but you can't bring them in, which is what you do with the fetus. Are you even taking into account what i write? It is your fault that they are in the basement. Treat them.
Quote:
Yes, that's the problem, NOT the abortion. The problem is that I create the fetus in the first place. What if it doesn't want, hmm?
Really interesting, that's why you HAVE to use abortion, because he grows and wants to live, biologically that is.
Secondly, you did not question your life when you were, say, 4 year old? Why can't you use an analogy from your OWN LIFE and treat them the same? Basically as far as I know, 4 year old children want to live. Same applies for even younger ones.
Quote:
(Don't tell me "IT DOES WANT" because, first, you don't know, and second, if it really DOES want, then it should be prepared for an eventual abortion if I don't want to feed it any longer)
Again i repeat. You gave life to it -- that does NOT give you the right to do whatever you want with it. You lock them up to be dependent on you? You take care of them. It's pretty simple. Because it is your fault.
Quote:
But if I don't want to "feed" it any more, I can make an abortion, and the fetus dies. It won't be happy, BUT that's not an evil act since I don't do a negative action (like killing it). It is also NOT a good action since good means to help everyone.
I'm not obligated to help any beggar at all, and if I don't do it I'm not EVIL, but not GOOD either. Not all of us want to be "good" you know
Are you even listening to what I posted? You are obligated to take care of the beggar if you force him into your home or lock him up in the basement.
Quote:
Again, the creation of the fetus is the only "forced" action and is thus somewhat evil if the fetus doesn't want to live.
Question: when you were, say, 3 years old, did you want to live? Does a child want to commit suicide? Why can't you just stop your assumptions and draw analogies from us, they are humans much like you and me. They want to live.
And actually this is tied to that 'forceful' action as well. You see, you make the action, you take care of the baby.
Quote:
This is REALLY the last time I reply in this, because it's the same thing I have said earlier. Is there a point in creating 100 posts with the same idea?
Not when we use arguments like "The fetus does not have rights!". "It is so. I know it is so. I have said it is so, therefore, it is so."
Quote:
Have fun "fighting" with mvass
uh what? I think you take this a bit too personally 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 28, 2008 04:52 PM |
|
|
I couldn't help myself and I HAD to answer because of the following quote:
Quote:
But your body is not out there. He does not starve out there. He starves in YOUR body.
This proves that you don't even know what abortion IS.
Abortion = taking the fetus OUT of the mother's belly.
Now I see why you don't understand
And your analogies are full of flaws. Locking someone = negative action, giving life = positive action. You ALWAYS ignore this fact (like in the "I get drunk and beat a guy" analogy)
Quote:
Again i repeat. You gave life to it -- that does NOT give you the right to do whatever you want with it.
I don't do anything with it. NOTHING. Abortion -> take the fetus out -> I don't give it any more hormones, that means I don't do ANYTHING with it (except taking it out of my "property")! So your argument is pretty weak.
Quote:
Are you even listening to what I posted? You are obligated to take care of the beggar if you force him into your home or lock him up in the basement.
No, I'm not obligated to help the beggar at all, IF I did not make a negative action against him (like locking him up)
So your argument works only if the creation of a fetus is considered a negative (evil) action. If you consider it evil, then let's stop all women from getting pregnant, right?
Still don't get it? Let me tell you this: Nobody is ever obligated to help someone unless a negative action is done to that someone. So, unless you consider getting pregnant a negative (evil) action, I'm not obligated to feed the fetus whatsoever.
But then again, if you consider getting pregnant a negative action, then let's stop all women from getting pregnant, right?
Quote:
You see, you make the action, you take care of the baby.
Again, if I make an action that is not considered evil, then I don't have to take care of the baby at all.
So choose, are you either against pregnancy globally or are you not?
Answer this: Do you consider getting pregnant (and giving life to a fetus) a negative action?
Only two possible answers, and NOTHING ELSE:
1)Yes - then you're the most weird human I've ever seen, and taking your ideas into practice means the extinction of the human race.
2)No - then giving life to the fetus is a positive action (since actions can be either positive or negative). You know what this means? That I'm not obligated to help/feed the fetus at all. If I make a positive action on someone (give him life), does that mean I'm obligated to help/feed him? Of course not, in fact, that someone owes me a reward for doing the positive action.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
