|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted March 31, 2010 02:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Simple, it's out, it's seperate from the mother. it is surviving on its own and not totally dependent of the mother.
Quote:
Newsfash! Inants and small children can't survive on their own.
Quote:
Notice the word totally.
Quote:
Infants and small children are totally dependant on others.
You just changed mother with others. Which is equivalent of setting equality between the rights of the individual with the responsibility of the state.
Quote:
The baby is exactly where he is supposed to be during that stage of the human life cycle. The baby is "home." Aborting it is murder.
Please drop your religious "facts" and debate on a level of what we can actually justify, or you'll end back up with willis the monkey again. There's no doubt the owner of the body is the mother, not the baby. The mother decides what happens to her body.
Now with that in mind, I suggest you reread what I wrote, and it should be obvious that the problem is not the abortion, but the lack of technology that means we can't provide safety for a baby at that stage as of yet.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
GrayFace
Promising
Known Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 02:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Someone's beliefs are always enforce. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are laws against theft and rape for example.
What about your argument about child rape and absolute moral? Theft and rape are bad according to almost any modern moral. Abortion is not.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 02:51 PM |
|
|
Morallity, as in what we believe is 'right', can never be more absolute than to the limit of what we agree upon. For an absolute moral to exist, everyone would have to agree upon it, independent of the way the percieve the world.
Most of us probably agree that baby rape from the perspective of the baby (and those who loves it) is wrong, but most is not all, which mean the statement, baby rape is wrong, is not logically something that can be seen as an absolute moral.
If anything ever should be accepted for an absolute moral, in my opinion, then it is that everyone gets what they want, without limiting others wants in the process. Defining want as what you, the conscious, existing entity, soul thingy, decides should and shouldn't happen.
Because it basicly implies that, whatever your morality is, then that's your morality and you should not be limited in a way of not being able to live like that. (Extrapolated to everyone of course).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 03:46 PM |
|
|
Elodin wrote:
Quote:
Let's say a single mother bears an infant at home. She places him in a crib. The infant is totally dependent on her. So your logic is that she should be allowed to kill the infant becuse he is totally dependant on her.
Just stepping in to point out a non sequitur.
Prior to birth, the fetus is dependant on the mother, and only the mother, for survival. If the mother dies, the fetus also dies (without immediate medical intervention).
After birth, the fetus is dependant on someone, but not necessarily the mother, for survival. The mother could die and the baby could easily survive.
Thus, it does not follow that, if one claims abortion is justified because the fetus is completely dependent on the mother for survival, then one must also believe that it is justified to murder an infant for the same reason. It's a failed attempt at reductio ad absurdum because the analogy doesn't hold up.
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 04:07 PM |
|
|
|
Not that this hasn't been pointed out a couple hundred times along the pages of this thread, I might add.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 05:23 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:25, 31 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Simple, it's out, it's seperate from the mother. it is surviving on its own and not totally dependent of the mother.
Quote:
Newsfash! Inants and small children can't survive on their own.
Quote:
Notice the word totally.
Quote:
Infants and small children are totally dependant on others.
You just changed mother with others. Which is equivalent of setting equality between the rights of the individual with the responsibility of the state.
Nice way to avoid the question. Do you agree with Peter Singer and other loony libs who say a mother has the right to kill her baby up to (and some say beyond) 2 years old because the baby is totally dependant on her?
I gave the example of a single mother having a baby at home. There is no one else living there. She places the baby in the crib and bashes its head in. According to your logic there is nothing wrong with that because the baby was totally dependant on her. She lives the lives far out in the woods and never has any visitors so the baby can be dependent only on her.
Quote:
Please drop your religious "facts" and debate on a level of what we can actually justify, or you'll end back up with willis the monkey again. There's no doubt the owner of the body is the mother, not the baby. The mother decides what happens to her body.
Please stop lying and actually debate with facts. It is dishonest and moronic to claim I have been using "religious facts" when I have been using science. I can only surmise that you failed biology and your mommy and daddy never told you about where babies come from.
The fact that a fetus has multiplying cells is a scientific fact. It is moronic to claim that is a religious argument. The multiplying cells indicate the fetus is alive. That is a scientific fact that only a moron could claim is a "religiou fact."
The fact that a fetus has unique human DNA (NOT THE SAME DNA AS THE MOTHER) and that the fetus is the product of human conception indicates that the fetus is a unique human. It is moronic to claim that that is a "religious fact."
Considering the fact of the multiplying cells, the unique human DNA, and that the fetus is the product of human conception it is irrational to come to any other conclusion than that the fetus is a unique human life.
Please note, none of the above is a religious argument. I have appealed to science. So stop lying about what I have said. It appears since you are unable to defend your positions or refute the facts I have presented that you have resorted to the Saul Alinsky methiod of just lying about and insulting your opponents. Politicians may do that but it is quite immoral.
[qutoe]Now with that in mind, I suggest you reread what I wrote, and it should be obvious that the problem is not the abortion, but the lack of technology that means we can't provide safety for a baby at that stage as of yet.
The baby is exactly where he is suopposed to be. Comparing the baby to an unwelcome quest who can be kicked out is idiotic. The baby is "at home."
Instead, a more appropriate comparison is a parent throwing a baby out the front door in the middle of a blizzard out in the woods with no one else around and hungry wolves at the door. Murder.
Quote:
Quote:
Someone's beliefs are always enforce. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are laws against theft and rape for example.
What about your argument about child rape and absolute moral? Theft and rape are bad according to almost any modern moral. Abortion is not.
Deliberate killing of a known innocent human life is immoral and always will be. Morality is absolute.
Oh, most American believe abortion should only be legal in a few circumstances. But morality is not determined by a popular vote. Furthur, abortion was illegal until immoral leftist loons decided to legislate from teh bench.
Your claim was apparently that no one had a right to enforce their morals on another. Yet now you seem to be saying the opposite, that a majority can enforce the morals of not raping or stealing on others.
Which is it? Does society have a right to force a certain standard of moral behavior or not? Your statements so far have been rather inconsistent.
Quote:
Most of us probably agree that baby rape from the perspective of the baby (and those who loves it) is wrong, but most is not all, which mean the statement, baby rape is wrong, is not logically something that can be seen as an absolute moral.
I love how atheists have to defend baby rape as not necessarily being immoral.
Quote:
Quote:
Let's say a single mother bears an infant at home. She places him in a crib. The infant is totally dependent on her. So your logic is that she should be allowed to kill the infant becuse he is totally dependant on her.
Just stepping in to point out a non sequitur.
Prior to birth, the fetus is dependant on the mother, and only the mother, for survival. If the mother dies, the fetus also dies (without immediate medical intervention).
After birth, the fetus is dependant on someone, but not necessarily the mother, for survival. The mother could die and the baby could easily survive.
Thus, it does not follow that, if one claims abortion is justified because the fetus is completely dependent on the mother for survival, then one must also believe that it is justified to murder an infant for the same reason. It's a failed attempt at reductio ad absurdum because the analogy doesn't hold up.
Sorry, you did not address the example. The single mother has no one else living with her. She has a baby in her house. No one else is living there. That makes the baby totally dependent on her. So does she have the right to bash the baby's head in or maybe to kill it in a painless way while he is sleeping?
YES, one uses the argument that a mother has a right to kill an unborn baby because it is totally dependent on her that one must also defend the right to the mother to kill her infant/small child who is also totally dependent on her.
Furthur, it should make no difference how many people the baby is dependent on before it has a right to live.
The "dependence on another" arguement also means that people in comas should be able to be killed and that the severely handicapped, mentally ill, and very elderly should be able to be killed too.
Oh, your claim that if a mother dies the unborn baby necessarily dies is false. There have been instances of babies being delivered via C-section when the mother has already died.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 05:35 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:38, 31 Mar 2010.
|
@JJ
Yes, you're right of course. How foolish of me.
@Elodin
Now you're changing the details of the story.
And in any case:
Quote:
Oh, your claim that if a mother dies the unborn baby necessarily dies is false. There have been instances of babies being delivered via C-section when the mother has already died.
To quote yourself: "Do you have a reading comprehension problem?"
I said: "(without immediate medical intervention)".
By the way, I'm not arguing against your point of view. It's just that the logic of your argument was incorrect.
____________
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
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 06:02 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 18:15, 31 Mar 2010.
|
just a quick check up...
no, just because we favour abortion does not mean we want the gassing of people in comas, people with handicaps, and elderly people. bearing in mind that they are not totally dependent on someone, whilst a fetus is.
just out of interest, Elodin...
Ectopic pregnancies. a friend of my was unfortunate enough to have one. the doctors had no choice but to abort the fetus so that she would survive.
you're views on it!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 06:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Yes, you're right of course. How foolish of me.
Well, not foolish, just mindless. 
I mean, making a post, pointing out a logical flaw, a contradiction, a rash conclusion, a false argument... You could just as well say, that's a heap of nonsense, or just keep quit, right?
For the matter at hand, I'm still waiting for a valid point why MEN, I mean men IN GENERAL, should have a say in whether abortion IN GENERAL should be allowed or not (that is, reserving the possibility that SPECIFIC men, that is, the father of a fetus, might have a say when it comes to SPECIFIC abortions, although even that is something I'd like to see valid points for first).
Since we are at it: what do you think, if ONLY WOMEN would make the laws concerning rape and domestic violence, what do you think how the laws would look?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 07:35 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:41, 31 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
just a quick check up...
no, just because we favour abortion does not mean we want the gassing of people in comas, people with handicaps, and elderly people. bearing in mind that they are not totally dependent on someone, whilst a fetus is.
Actually, I have a good personal example. My mother's Alzheimer's disease. She is now at the stage where she is paranoid/delusional at times. She can't really dress herself properly any longer. She can't go from the stove to the kitchen table in fixing her own plate of food and taking it to the table to eat. This has to be done for her. She is almost totally dependant on my father who is elderly and gets around on crutches. Soon she will be at the stage where she no longer recognizes anyone.
According to your logic since my mother can't take care of herself and is totally dependant on my father (or soon will be totally dependant) my father has a right to kill her.
There are many paralyzed, elderly, and other people in similar positions.
Quote:
just out of interest, Elodin...
Ectopic pregnancies. a friend of my was unfortunate enough to have one. the doctors had no choice but to abort the fetus so that she would survive.
you're views on it!
An ectopic pregnacy endangers the life of the mother. The organ will likely rupture and kill her. So it is self defense to abort the baby in that circumstance.
Quote:
For the matter at hand, I'm still waiting for a valid point why MEN, I mean men IN GENERAL, should have a say in whether abortion IN GENERAL should be allowed or not (that is, reserving the possibility that SPECIFIC men, that is, the father of a fetus, might have a say when it comes to SPECIFIC abortions, although even that is something I'd like to see valid points for first).
I think it is quite idiotic to say that because a woman bears the baby she has a right to kill the baby and no one else should have a say.
I have yet to see a valid argument why a mother has a right to kill her baby (with the exception of a pregnancy that endangers her life.)
Deliberately killing a known innocent human life is something that all sane and moral people should object to. I don't understand why you think men don't have a right to object to women murdering babies.
Oh, domestic violence is done by women as often as it is by men. And women rape men as well, only not as often, and the man is usually too much afraid of being made fun of to report it.
I personally favor the death penalty for rape so I don't think if women made the laws they would be more harsh than mine in that regard.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 07:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
just a quick check up...
no, just because we favour abortion does not mean we want the gassing of people in comas, people with handicaps, and elderly people. bearing in mind that they are not totally dependent on someone, whilst a fetus is.
Actually, I have a good personal example. My mother's Alzheimer's disease. She is not at the stage where she is paranoid/delusional at times. Soon can't really dress herself properly any longer. She can't go from the stove to the kitchen table in fixing her own plate of food and taking it to the table to eat. This has to be done for her. She is almost totally dependant on my father who is elderly and gets around on crutches. Soon she will be at the stage where she no longer recognizes anyone.
According to your logic since my mother can't take care of herself and is totally dependant on my father (or soon will be totally dependant) my father has a right to kill her.
There are many paralyzed, elderly, and other people in similar positions.
Whilst I feel sorry for you're mother, I have to ask you this.
does you're mother breath or digest?
if she does, then she has the same right to life as a new born infant, a young child, a teenager, an adult or anyone else in the world.
if she does not and does it through another person, then she does not.
Quote:
Quote:
just out of interest, Elodin...
Ectopic pregnancies. a friend of my was unfortunate enough to have one. the doctors had no choice but to abort the fetus so that she would survive.
you're views on it!
An ectopic pregnacy endangers the life of the mother. The organ will likely rupture and kill her. So it is self defense to abort the baby in that circumstance.
I get a distinct incling that you say that with the "oh well, if you must" attitude. meh, it's probably just my understanding of it.
Also, here's another question...
The Anti-christ is going to be born, and you have the chance to abort the baby. do you do it, and kill a human child? or save the child, and damn us all?
if you feel this question is too ridiculous, then fine.
Just remember, Elodin. If you truly live in a free country, then you should have free reign over you're body. hey, in britain, it's so. Are you saying that you want you're own country to be less free than a little socialist island?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 07:49 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
I mean, making a post, pointing out a logical flaw, a contradiction, a rash conclusion, a false argument... You could just as well say, that's a heap of nonsense, or just keep quit, right?
As an analytical thinker, I'm more interested in why arguments fail rather than merely if they fail. Knowing the reason behind an argument's failure does help to avoid repeating the same mistake later on: provided that one is willing to listen to the explanation, of course.
____________
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 March 31, 2010 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
does you're mother breath or digest?
if she does, then she has the same right to life as a new born infant, a young child, a teenager, an adult or anyone else in the world.
There are a lot of things that breathe and digest and yet aren't protected by the law like that. We call them animals.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
does you're mother breath or digest?
if she does, then she has the same right to life as a new born infant, a young child, a teenager, an adult or anyone else in the world.
There are a lot of things that breathe and digest and yet aren't protected by the law like that. We call them animals.
surely by the examples above, you could tell I was refering to a sentient human being?
unless you are implying that Elodin is a half-human, half-animal hybrid.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 08:53 PM |
|
|
@ CorribusQuote:
As an analytical thinker, I'm more interested in why arguments fail rather than merely if they fail. Knowing the reason behind an argument's failure does help to avoid repeating the same mistake later on: provided that one is willing to listen to the explanation, of course.
That's a big "if". I mean, consider this answer to the challenge to name a valid point, why men in general (as opposed to women in general) should be allowed to have a say in whether abortions in general should be allowed or not:
Quote:
I think it is quite idiotic to say that because a woman bears the baby she has a right to kill the baby and no one else should have a say.
I have yet to see a valid argument why a mother has a right to kill her baby (with the exception of a pregnancy that endangers her life.)
Deliberately killing a known innocent human life is something that all sane and moral people should object to. I don't understand why you think men don't have a right to object to women murdering babies.
Oh, domestic violence is done by women as often as it is by men. And women rape men as well, only not as often, and the man is usually too much afraid of being made fun of to report it.
I personally favor the death penalty for rape so I don't think if women made the laws they would be more harsh than mine in that regard.
Since the word "idiotic" is used in the quote, well. I've never seen a more idiotic point than that which says that it is idiotic to ask to bring up a point for something.
For the sake of showing, what Quote:
a valid argument why a mother has a right to kill her baby the fetus in her womb
is, here an argument:
Because short of cuffing her hands and feet, chaining her to something and force-feed her, there is no way to force her to keep the fetus alive if she doesn't want to (or, if you like that better, to stop her letting the fetus die).
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 08:54 PM |
|
|
Oh Elodin, you say that because a fetus have unique human DNA and reproduces cells it's a human life, right? Make some sence I guess. However, the medical definition of a live human being is a beating heart.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 09:08 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:09, 31 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
That's a big "if". I mean, consider this answer to the challenge to name a valid point, why men in general (as opposed to women in general) should be allowed to have a say in whether abortions in general should be allowed or not:
Sorry, I was misleading. I didn't mean "if" as in "whether"; I meant "if" as in "that". Which is to say, when I read an argument, I don't stop once I've determined that it fails a logic test. I generally like to find (and articulate) the reason it failed, because I find this to be instructive. In a "friendly" discussion, the other party (i.e., the one that made the error) is usually interested in understanding how their logic failed.
Anyway:
Quote:
I've never seen a more idiotic point than that which says that it is idiotic to ask to bring up a point for something.
Yes, agreed. It's the mistaken idea that deriding an opposing viewpoint is the same as arguing against it. An ad hominem style argument, although one that lacks courage. If you're going to say that it's idiotic to hold a viewpoint, you might as well just be direct about it and call the person an idiot.
Quote:
Because short of cuffing her hands and feet, chaining her to something and force-feed her, there is no way to force her to keep the fetus alive if she doesn't want to (or, if you like that better, to stop her letting the fetus die).
Besides which: there is a big logical difference between the type of (nature of) dependency of the fetus on the (expectant) mother and the type of dependency of a (born) baby on the mother. Elodin still doesn't seem to get that.
In any case, to address your point, I'd like to know why you think that the father should not have a say in the matter of abortion. That is, you raise the question, so you must have some reason in mind why it should/could be questioned.
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 09:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, I was misleading. I didn't mean "if" as in "whether"; I meant "if" as in "that". Which is to say, when I read an argument, I don't stop once I've determined that it fails a logic test. I generally like to find (and articulate) the reason it failed, because I find this to be instructive. In a "friendly" discussion, the other party (i.e., the one that made the error) is usually interested in understanding how their logic failed.
Right. In a friendly discussion. Well, my initial remark was meant funny; sorry, I thought that was obvious. I wanted to express my astonishment about you trying to explain principles, workings and so on; I thought, you'd seen how futile that is and acted accordingly quite some time before me.
To the point:
Isn't it a very decisive difference of whether men in general may decide about whether abortion should be allowed in general - that is, allowed under certain conditions we all know, like duration of pregnancy, type of conception, special social circumstances blablabla -, or whether one specific man, who sired the fetus in question, has a say, or better: a relevant opinion and voice, whether a specific and generally allowed abortion should not be allowed?
It's difficult to find a valid analogy, but let's try this:
Say, half of the population is blind by birth. A very important part of the whole 100% of society could be done only by the seeing half, let's say something like a visual watch.
Would you say now that the blind half of the population should have a say about the laws regulating general (not specific) service failure of the seeing population?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 10:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the medical definition of a live human being is a beating heart.
That's actually not true. One can have a still heart and still be revived as long as brain death has not occurred.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 31, 2010 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
the medical definition of a live human being is a beating heart.
That's actually not true. One can have a still heart and still be revived as long as brain death has not occurred.
But if your hearth stop your technically dead, so you come back from the dead if you manage to get your hearth going again.
There is a reason "revive the dead" sort of makes sense.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
