Page 74 of 75 FirstFirst ... 2464707172737475 LastLast
Results 1,826 to 1,850 of 1853

Thread: The Great Big Abortion Debate (READ THE FIRST POST!)

  1. #1826
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The House That Never Was
    Posts
    1,815

    Default

    Rather than try to respond to Scripto Scorpio's very long, very tedious post that includes several arguments I have either dropped in the past or have never embraced in the first place, I am going to refer back to a very early post in this thread that exspressed the pro-choice side's perspective of the situation better than anything we've said yet, and it should also put many arguments of you pro-lifers to rest:

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychic View Post
    I have to say that the OP kind of annoys me in that all it does is talk about whether or not something in the womb is human and if killing it is right. What it ignores entirely is does a woman have the right to dictate what happens to he body?

    Personally, I don't care if you consider a zygote or a fetus to be "human." What I beg to question is whether the life of that fetus takes precedence over a woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body.

    Since a huge percentage of people who participate in abortion debates are not female and will never even have to consider what it would be like to be pregnant, let's take a quick look at Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion.

    The short version is this:

    "You wake up one morning and realize you are stuck in bed, back-to-back with an unconscious, famous violinist. The Society of Music Lovers saw this famous violinist was dying due to a kidney failure ailment, and you are the only person who has the right blood type to get them through it. This is explained to you, and you are also told that unplugging the violinist will kill him! The violinist must remain plugged into you for nine months, and after that he'll be fine and everyone will be happy."

    What do you do? You probably don't want to stay in bed with this guy for nine months, but if you demand to be unplugged, he dies! Now imagine you're told

    "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because all persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

    You would probably find this ridiculous! Sure, you can let the violinist stay plugged into you for whatever amount of time out of the goodness of your heart, if you're willing to. But are you seriously going to drop your entire life for this? What if you're then forced to take care of the violinist after he's unplugged from you? What if he becomes your responsibility and you have to take care of him for the rest of your life?

    The argument goes on, but this is the basics of it, and I think it's worth thinking about.


    The point of this argument is to say "fine, let's grant a fetus personhood from the moment of conception, or even erection if that's what you want. But just because it's a person now, does that make its life more important than giving you the chance to decide what happens to your own body?"


    ~Psychic
    @mattj:

    You asked for "one benefit of unwanted pregnancy" and I provided 6, so... I guess that article does prove much?
    All benefits are irrelevant to a woman who is now stuck with a child they neither care for nor want to care for. But I'm sure you are friends with plenty of women who have had unwanted pregnancies and wish they had the child. Wait, you don't? Shocker! Like Psychic said, benefits can only be determined by the mother as to whether or not they are actually worthwhile; no man could ever speak from experience.

    of course they are sentient
    Wrong again! Only great apes, dolphins, orcas, elephants, and European Magpies are truly sentient animals, as they are self-aware. Note: sentience is not the same as instinct. Arguing that, because a chicken runs to the chicken feed because it is aware it is there would be wrong. It is the chicken's instinct to search for food and eat it once it finds some.

    This test is how scientists test self-awareness in animals and, ultimately, sentience.


    @Mandi:

    I'd respond to those quotes tit for tat, but most of them were "nuh uh I disagree, with no evidence or argument to consider" so I'll pass. Unless I missed something?
    Oh, I'm sure you will. And, either you are a very poor typist, or you have a horrible sense of humor (Mandi? come on, seriously?).
    Last edited by Manafi's Dream; 18th August 2012 at 4:55 PM.
    "Your memories are connected, like links in a chain. Those same chains are what anchor us all together."
    -Naminé


    Pokemon X Team - French Playthrough
    *COMPLETE*
    Amphinobi | Noctali | Mentali | Farfaduvet | Darumacho | Carchakrok
    3DS FC: 0430 - 9679 - 6068
    IGN: Micah
    Friend Safari Type: Fire
    Friend Safari Pokemon: Magmar, Ninetales, Charmeleon


        Spoiler:- Credits, etc.:


  2. #1827
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    404

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Manafi's Dream View Post
    Rather than try to respond to Scripto Scorpio's very long, very tedious post that includes several arguments I have either dropped in the past or have never embraced in the first place, I am going to refer back to a very early post in this thread that exspressed the pro-choice side's perspective of the situation better than anything we've said yet, and it should also put many arguments of you pro-lifers to rest:
    Let me cut to Psychic's argument there in nutshell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psychic
    The point of this argument is to say "fine, let's grant a fetus personhood from the moment of conception, or even erection if that's what you want. But just because it's a person now, does that make its life more important than giving you the chance to decide what happens to your own body?"
    Yes, why shouldn't it? There's a limit to how far you can take deciding what to do with your own body. For example, getting and knocking back stuff like heroin etc is ILLEGAL. Why? Because it is harmful. People get to have freedom, within reason. Contrary to what people may think, you do NOT have the legal right to do whatever you want with your own body. Laws against drugs is an example. Driving while drunk is also an example, it may be your body, but you put the lives of yourself and others at risk if you drive while intoxicated with alcohol. You have a very large amount of freedom, but not total freedom. It's when people start to say they can do stuff with little-to-no regard for the health of others, even if it's with their own body, that I get angry. Let's face it, you can't use Psychic's argument to put pro-life arguments to rest.

    Also, FYI, there is a user here that has posted in this thread with the user name "Mandi.", mattj must have just gotten a bit mixed up, that's all.
    I will not trade for hacked/cloned pokemon.
    5th gen: I can breed max Sp.Att/Speed Zoruas with Extrasensory and Dark Pulse with a modest nature.

  3. #1828
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scriptor Scorpio View Post
    Of course, not only do the people who use the parasitism argument need to make up their minds, they also need to get their facts straight. A fetus is not a parasite.

    First of all, LEARN WHAT A PARASITE IS ....THE HUMAN FETUS IS A PARASITE.

    "an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it".
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite



    Quote Originally Posted by Scriptor Scorpio View Post
    Since a parasitic relationship must be between two organisms of different species
    SO WHAT ARE PARASITIC TWINS?


    "THIS IS SCIENCE:
    HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
    As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."


    http://galerouth.blogspot.com


    Quote Originally Posted by Scriptor Scorpio View Post
    One can say that a woman should have control of her own body, yet for a fetus to come into existence (except in cases of rape), she had to give up some of that control over her body to some man (and killing the fetus is exercising control over a different body, too). It can only be made to appear as a matter of a woman's choice by rampant misinformation and fallacious reasoning. Instead, it is really about the rights of the fetus.

    Have you ever had sex before with anyone? Do you even know what rape is? A woman under rape or consensual sex doesn't give up control.... either she is forced into having sex or she IS willing participant in it. SO Please, stop talking about sex as if you know anything about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scriptor Scorpio View Post
    @Iceberg and supporters:

    No further statement about an unborn child in any early or late term may be made about it being human (it is), a parasite (it isn't), an extension of the mother like an arm (it isn't), or sentient (it is, or whether it is or not is irrelevant when seeing other non-sentient creatures having more rights). The mother not wanting the fetus/child/unborn baby/zygote isn't a justification for disposing of it. View my proposed three-strike system. It might be in your grey area, but it seems you still try to justify a woman being allowed to abort a baby because they don't want to go through labor anything.

    Again, the human fetus IS not a baby, but a parasite and science proves it; and pregnancy is known to cause HARM to women that can last their whole lives long: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm. Thus, there is no law that can force a woman to endure all that against her will and legal rights, since the fetus has none:



    "THIS IS THE LAW:
    ABORTION IS A CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT SUPPORTED BY THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT, AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT.

    NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

    "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirtee...s_Constitution

    this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

    consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent. "


    http://galerouth.blogspot.com/2012/0...ent-enjoy.html

  4. #1829
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The House That Never Was
    Posts
    1,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    Yes, why shouldn't it? There's a limit to how far you can take deciding what to do with your own body. For example, getting and knocking back stuff like heroin etc is ILLEGAL. Why? Because it is harmful. People get to have freedom, within reason. Contrary to what people may think, you do NOT have the legal right to do whatever you want with your own body. Laws against drugs is an example. Driving while drunk is also an example, it may be your body, but you put the lives of yourself and others at risk if you drive while intoxicated with alcohol. You have a very large amount of freedom, but not total freedom. It's when people start to say they can do stuff with little-to-no regard for the health of others, even if it's with their own body, that I get angry. Let's face it, you can't use Psychic's argument to put pro-life arguments to rest.
    Drugs and alcohol are not regulated simply because they harm your own body; you said it yourself, they put others in danger, something abortion does not do. The child is not as large of a concern when it comes to who you put first in a pregnancy. The mother is the most important person out of the two. We as men will never be able to understand the trials of pregnancy, a factor which weighs heavily on your argument more than mine. Regulating what women do with their embryos is like regulating what we do with out sperm: it's an invasion of privacy, a privacy that no matter how personal should NOT be intruded upon by outside parties. Now, I do believe doctors should have the choice to not perform abortions as individuals if they find the procedure to be too intense, but women need to have the access to abortion. A majority of women probably will not even use abortion, but it is unfair to the likes of them who would like to have the procedure performed.

    I would say more, but, honestly, I have other things to do and will try to respond with more later.

    Also, FYI, there is a user here that has posted in this thread with the user name "Mandi.", mattj must have just gotten a bit mixed up, that's all.
    Oh, well then yes, that does make more sense.
    "Your memories are connected, like links in a chain. Those same chains are what anchor us all together."
    -Naminé


    Pokemon X Team - French Playthrough
    *COMPLETE*
    Amphinobi | Noctali | Mentali | Farfaduvet | Darumacho | Carchakrok
    3DS FC: 0430 - 9679 - 6068
    IGN: Micah
    Friend Safari Type: Fire
    Friend Safari Pokemon: Magmar, Ninetales, Charmeleon


        Spoiler:- Credits, etc.:


  5. #1830
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    404

    Default

    OK, I think it'd be easier if you respond with all your points later. I'll just say for now that I view the mother and the unborn child as equals, at the very least for the sake of erring on the side of caution. Also, with abortion, you ARE taking actions that will harm someone else. In this case, the mother is taking action that will bring harm (actually death) to someone else, the unborn child within her, so it's actually the same kind of thing as with drugs.

    @blackpeppper - IMHO, you're really grasping at straws with semantics, by using solely the way definitions are written to justify terms such as 'parasite' and 'reproductive slavery'. Regarding parasites, they just leech, they do not continue the bloodline of the host. The unborn child was created in the mother's womb, and does NOT have a choice to go elsewhere. Furthermore, it does not 'hijack' the mother's immune system, it sends signals to tell the mother's body a baby that needs care has implanted, there's a world of difference. Without stuff like this, we would go EXTINCT. There have already been several links to the American College of Paediatrics put in near the end of this thread where scientists that SPECIALISE in growth state that life starts at conception. Furthermore, IMHO, the law is wrong, the US Supreme Court screwed up Roe vs Wade on a monumental scale, as I have stated before. Only the dissenting judges expressed anything that was common sense.

    Pro-choicers really need to stop using such loaded terms as 'parasite' if they want to be taken seriously by a lot of pro-lifers. Finally, try to use scientific sources directly, instead of ranting weblogs if you can. If you can't do that, then at least try wikipedia articles that cite scientific papers (I do see you do some of this, though, but not for the science parts). I'm sorry, but I cannot take a source as http://galerouth.blogspot.com seriously at all.
    Last edited by JDavidC; 18th August 2012 at 7:52 PM.
    I will not trade for hacked/cloned pokemon.
    5th gen: I can breed max Sp.Att/Speed Zoruas with Extrasensory and Dark Pulse with a modest nature.

  6. #1831
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kieken
    Posts
    247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    OK, I think it'd be easier if you respond with all your points later. I'll just say for now that I view the mother and the unborn child as equals, at the very least for the sake of erring on the side of caution. Also, with abortion, you ARE taking actions that will harm someone else. In this case, the mother is taking action that will bring harm (actually death) to someone else, the unborn child within her, so it's actually the same kind of thing as with drugs.

    @blackpeppper - IMHO, you're really grasping at straws with semantics, by using solely the way definitions are written to justify terms such as 'parasite' and 'reproductive slavery'. Regarding parasites, they just leech, they do not continue the bloodline of the host. The unborn child was created in the mother's womb, and does NOT have a choice to go elsewhere. Furthermore, it does not 'hijack' the mother's immune system, it sends signals to tell the mother's body a baby that needs care has implanted, there's a world of difference. Without stuff like this, we would go EXTINCT. There have already been several links to the American College of Paediatrics put in near the end of this thread where scientists that SPECIALISE in growth state that life starts at conception. Furthermore, IMHO, the law is wrong, the US Supreme Court screwed up Roe vs Wade on a monumental scale, as I have stated before. Only the dissenting judges expressed anything that was common sense.

    Pro-choicers really need to stop using such loaded terms as 'parasite' if they want to be taken seriously by a lot of pro-lifers. Finally, try to use scientific sources directly, instead of ranting weblogs if you can. If you can't do that, then at least try wikipedia articles that cite scientific papers (I do see you do some of this, though, but not for the science parts). I'm sorry, but I cannot take a source as http://galerouth.blogspot.com seriously at all.
    Thank you for answering blackpepper's post. Semantics should not be the issue, certainly when it's abused to circle around the real issue here: let us consider that both individuals, woman and child/embryo/zygote/blastocyst/etc. have equal rights. Then either way, one will get sacrificed. This is a terrible choice, pro-choicers overvalue the reputational productive life of the woman, as they believe destroying a chance of a succesful career and physical scars is worse than torture. Pro-lifers overvalue the life of every single thing and undervalue a the actual possibility that the forcibly non-aborted child will have a happy life. Truth is, if you look at risk analysis, most individuals growing up in an unloving family and a bad neighbourhood will far too many times end up miserable for far too many times in their life.

    @blackpepper: I quoted the first post that state the rules, if you don't like them, don't post here. Make your own topic.

    Now, how to ease the minds and hearts of pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike? Well, they will never agree on whether abortion is homicide, because that won't sit easy in their heart. Killing a human is wrong, even out of self-defense, you feel horrible about taking someone's life. But what if it's not a human... Genius! And so the two sides were born. If you insist op putting yourself on one of both sides and put a label on your sweater, you'll never ever agree. If however you type the status: 'truth seeker, pending', then we can work. Because our political parties are especially known for vetoing everything so they remain strong and they don't move towards 'center', losing any more extremist voters, I strongly oppose distinctive sides, each revelling in their splinter factions pf extremity. But I also detest grey areas where freedom is a dangerous thing. In the grey, the law cannot punish those that go just op the border with the black and spit at it, pardon my drama.

    So, as I've read up on Planned Parenthood, I do suggest that contraception should be provided to everyone in order to prevent couples having to go through abortion if they aren't fit to be parents and it was an accident. Think of it as an addition to Medicare (here, such a thing has been onsidered normal for many years).

    But just like the moral dilemma with smokers using health insurance to treat their lung cancer, we shouldn't allow women to ask for an abortion when they didn't have the responsibility to take contraception. Everything prohibited by law is to try to prevent harm to people, their financial security, their health, animals, the environment, etc. At least, I think it is.

    So when a woman refuses to take contraception, use the three-strike system so after the third abortion she is institutionalised untill she is evaluated to be sane enough to be a responsible member of society. No need for sterilising or something like that, just like with prisoners given a life-long jail sentences instead of the chair, the woman is still allowed the ability to reproduce for if someday, in her forties, she is sane enough to use contraception or choose to have children.

    If she takes contraception but still gets pregnant or if she gets raped, she may get an abortion, because it is the best for the mother and the child alike. If the child is born, it and the mother will be miserable because she didn't choose to have it and/or is unfit to be a parent. If it is aborted, even late-term (and hopefully the woman doesn't die during that, but opting it is better than the child being born and both of them growing miserable), she will perhaps be saddened she aborted a possible child and the child was killed without feeling a thing (which should be given attention too). Seems like choice number two is better for both. This goes beyond 'rights' which were made to protect people's happiness, not to force someone else to give it up.

    But rights and duties, which people always seem to forget, can be forced onto someone when they destroy someone else's. Ah yes, here's the hitch, either way someone's rights will be obliterated and pro-lifers argue that the baby loses all of its potential rights, not just the right to live happily. And the pro-choicers believe the potential part is key. They are not realised, so they do not exist. If only things were so easy, so black and white, one side fighting the other and 'beating' them geocentrists, conservatives, hippies, whichever side is painted to be 'wrong'. Well, science proved geocentrists wrong, but it cannot do the same for abortion. Psychology can.

    What choice gives both people the most happiness overall? Choice number two. You say a child might be very happy and so the woman should be forced to gestate? Even if we're talking about something say cereals, which I enjoy eating, I do not enjoy it at all when I'm forced to and I don't want to at the moment. And there is a small problem even as it becomes possible to carry unborn children to an unwilling mother: it carries the genes from the original mother, which could be called her property.

    So, you can't take half of woman's genes, just like you can't take sperm or DNA without permission. It's some kind of privacy right, I'm guessing. So yes, a woman may abort her baby if she had an accident or was raped and doesn't want her genes to help grow a baby. Want the right to reproduce to only be in the hands of someone who uses it responsibly instead of it being a side-effect of having sex and only 99,99% chance of not getting pregnant, like a driver's license? Sorry, don't think that'll ever happen, though feel free to discuss it in some other topic.

    What about the father? If he had checked the woman was using contraception, but she faked that or lied, he has no responsibility, because it's a bit like rape: you're forced to provide half of your DNA for a child you don't want to have or care for. If he doesn't check, he comes into the three-strike system, so he doesn't make a lot of women pregnant while stating 'they tricked him'. Any couple going steady should discuss what they would do if they were to have a child, because if an accident occurs and only one of both wants to keep it, we've got all kinds of problems.

    The key word is, acting responsibly. Should you feel to do so or heed the warnings of advisors, you're institutionalised untill you do. If someone's a kleptomaniac or any of the sort, they are a danger to anybody's rights. Please reply to this arguments, I hope it isn't this clear-cut and I hope you can nuance things or even prove me wrong. But don't ignore me. That's unworthy of a debater.

  7. #1832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Manafi's Dream View Post
    All benefits are irrelevant to a woman who is now stuck with a child they neither care for nor want to care for. But I'm sure you are friends with plenty of women who have had unwanted pregnancies and wish they had the child. Wait, you don't? Shocker! Like Psychic said, benefits can only be determined by the mother as to whether or not they are actually worthwhile; no man could ever speak from experience.
    Yo manafi,

    I never said that the benefits of pregnancy make abortion unjustifiable. He asked for a single benefit of pregnancy and I provided 6. The 2 second google search gave me hundreds, but 6>1 so that's all I needed. Stop assuming that every single thing I type is an argument against abortion. I was answering a challenge. Read the convo before you chime in.
    Quote Originally Posted by Manafi's Dream View Post
    Wrong again! Only great apes, dolphins, orcas, elephants, and European Magpies are truly sentient animals, as they are self-aware. Note: sentience is not the same as instinct. Arguing that, because a chicken runs to the chicken feed because it is aware it is there would be wrong. It is the chicken's instinct to search for food and eat it once it finds some.
    Self awareness =/= sentience. I already provided the definition of sentience:
    sen·tient
    Adjective:
    Able to perceive or feel things: "sentient life forms".
    Most animals feel or perceive things, including the "cows, chickens, and pigs" that he mentioned. Why would you even want to argue whether or not cows are sentient in this thread? The only reason I posted that definition is because what he said made literally no sense to me. I wanted to know what he's talking about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Manafi's Dream View Post
    URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test"]This test[/URL] is how scientists test self-awareness in animals and, ultimately, sentience.
    Ctrl+F "sentience"

    0 results

    looks like that's not how scientists determine sentience

    try reading your sources once in a while
    Quote Originally Posted by Manafi's Dream View Post
    Oh, I'm sure you will. And, either you are a very poor typist, or you have a horrible sense of humor (Mandi? come on, seriously?).
    I swear to glob I thought your username was Mandi something something. My bad.

    And concering Psychic's post, as well written and thoughtful as it is, its already been addressed before in this thread. That's the problem with your side of the debate. You just keep dragging up the same debunked positions over and over again, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Oh? That argument has been addressed? Lets bring it up again!

  8. #1833
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy View Post
    As opposed to laughing in a bad way? Getting time off work is just another benefit of pregnancy. I think you can also go on the carpool lane too because you have another person living inside of you.
    By laughing in a bad way I meant like ridicule :P Look at all these wonderful benefits of pregnancy. I think I'll go walk around the shady part of town tonight and hope that I get raped so that I can experience the joy of raising a child I didn't have any control over.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj
    You asked for "one benefit of unwanted pregnancy" and I provided 6, so... I guess that article does prove much?
    It doesn't prove anything. The article just said some women felt more energized. No proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj
    Ah but! As I pointed out, that's not the conditions we're talking about! Its not just a negative impact! There are positive impacts too! Many of them! I'm not talking about a non-sentient conjoined twin who only has negative impacts. I'm asking you, if any conjoined twin happens to not have consciousness at whatever moment, should the other conjoined twin be allowed to kill it? Do you really support the random, on-a-whim murder of conjoined individuals based on the lack of sentience? If not, then why do you support the random, on-a-whim murder of unborn children based on sentience? Or do you realize that sentience in and of itself cannot justify abortion? Its not even a factor.
    If the child has no negative impact on you, such as not causing you to lose your job, halt education, destroy your body, cause you mental torment, etc. then you shouldn't abort it. If it is a child you wanted and planned for aborting it would be crazy. Just as if you have a conjoined twin (legally the death of one would be the parents decision, assuming it is while the twins are under 18) that you want and doesn't hinder the life of the sentient twin it shouldn't be killed. However if the sentient twin's life will be a living hell because of the non-sentient conjoined twin, than the non-sentient twin should be killed.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj
    wat

    of course they are sentient
    Not in the way people separate humans from animals with. Cows don't have complex thoughts about life, emotions, or how they feel about other cows. Humans do. Zygotes, like the cow, do not think in the way humans do. If a zygote is going to have a right to live than so is a cow.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj
    Not just mine. The opinion of myriad others, including untold medical professionals/biologists/scientists. Its like saying "in your opinion the world is a sphere".
    First of all, I have linked to many medical professionals who have opposing opinions. Second of all, there is proof the world is not flat. It is a black and white issue. Whether abortion is immoral or not is not black and white. Also, just because I think the world is a sphere, and so do many professionals, that doesn't give us the right to take away your right to believe the world is flat.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj
    Yo. I read that whole article. I didn't see a single place in that article that said that not having sentience makes you not of the human species. I read several lines that said that having a human's level of sentience makes human's special, but not that not having a human's level of sentience makes you non-human. There are plenty of humans that have a lower level of sentience, the severely mentally retarded for example. You keep referring to that article, which doesn't prove the point you're getting at. I suppose you don't look at the mentally retarded as human do you? After all, many animals have a higher level of sentience than them. I guess since you don't consider them to be human you're fine with killing them too.
    I see the point you're making, and you don't seem to be grasping what I mean. You are arguing that a fetus deserves to live even thought it will ruin a woman's life. Correct? While at a certain stage a fetus does have brain wave activity and a pumping heart, so it shows signs of life. However, a fetus doesn't think like a "real" human does. Therefore, the way I see it is that the life of a fetus is no more valuable than the life of a cow or chicken. And the human race has no problem killing cows or chickens.

    For the record, if you are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of your reach you might as well die. Your life will be painful and you'll only be a drain on the system and your family.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj
    wait

    you really

    and I do mean really

    think that the order that the DNA pairs are in

    doesn't

    make a significant difference

    ?

    I don't think we can have this conversation anymore. You need to read into how DNA works, I'm sorry we just need to end this here.


    And actually, that's the truth. There was more to respond to, but if you don't understand how DNA works, we can't really have a conversation about whether or not DNA makes a person human. We're kind of stuck till you learn a bit more.
    As a biology student I understand completely. Obviously it makes a difference or we would be harry and have tails. FYI, it is also the specific strands of DNA that are read. Some sequences are not copied by tRNA to make proteins. Which DNA sequences are "ignored" in a sense is different in every cell and species. This is why your liver cell does different things than your muscle cell. They both have the exact same sets of DNA. But the cells don't "use" the same sequences. This wasn't the point I was making though. It was either you or JDavidC that said it is human DNA that makes a zygote more important than a chicken etc. I was simply countering that we share a lot in common with out unworthy of life counterparts.

    Thank you for insulting my intelligence though. It is an excellent testament to your ignorance. The fact that you misunderstand a point and counter with an insult is marvelous. It reminds me of something the children I used to baby sit would do.

    To all those who contend that a human's (may that be zygote or actual human) right to live is more important than any of another humans rights (except for the right to live) I have this to say to you. You are going to have to give me your kidney and then nurse me back to health for the next nine months. You didn't plan on this, nor do you want to do this, but without it I'll die. Oh and with that you'll have to give up your job and anything else you were doing like school. Because I am going to completely take over your life.
    FC: 1463 5647 1777


    Come check out my Trade Shop!!!

  9. #1834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iceberg View Post
    For the record, if you are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of your reach you might as well die. Your life will be painful and you'll only be a drain on the system and your family.
    This is the core difference between our positions. We value all innocent human life. You only value human life that fits your idea of ideal. There really cannot be reconciliation.

    How can you look at severely mentally disabled children and think "meh, they might as well die..."?

  10. #1835
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    This is the core difference between our positions. We value all innocent human life. You only value human life that fits your idea of ideal. There really cannot be reconciliation.

    How can you look at severely mentally disabled children and think "meh, they might as well die..."?
    That's not really what Iceberg said, though. She said 'if you are so severely retarded that you are beyond basic human thought' than someone's life might not be valuable. All of the mentally disabled people I've known (since I've gone a Special Education school) even if they can't speak, are obviously capable of basic human thought. The only ones that aren't capable of any basic human thought probably fall in the category of people who will be 'vegetables' forever.

    She really should have used the word 'vegetable' instead of 'retarded' since anyone that I've ever known as 'retarded' is capable of basic human thought. She does not come off as a Social Darwinist, just pro euthanization. Although you may reject that as well. Are you sure you did not misunderstand her?

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  11. #1836
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iceberg View Post
    For the record, if you are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of your reach you might as well die. Your life will be painful and you'll only be a drain on the system and your family.
    Even if I was pro-life, I would still agree with you on this point. While a fetus has potential to be something, a severely retarded person does have potential to be anything.

    I see that mattj has literally put you on the record by quoting you in his sig. He did this to me once also. Unfortunately, I don't think it's against the rules. Either that, or Profesco really doesn't care. What I did was put in my sig a quote with the last paragraph of this vm from a mod on the Zelda Universe Forums. This was during one of mattj's bans from ZU. They have stricter rules there.
    We can all agree that the second generation was either Pokémon's Golden Age or its Silver Age.

    Black and White gave me a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  12. #1837
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The House That Never Was
    Posts
    1,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    I never said that the benefits of pregnancy make abortion unjustifiable. He asked for a single benefit of pregnancy and I provided 6. The 2 second google search gave me hundreds, but 6>1 so that's all I needed. Stop assuming that every single thing I type is an argument against abortion. I was answering a challenge. Read the convo before you chime in.Self awareness =/= sentience. I already provided the definition of sentience:Most animals feel or perceive things, including the "cows, chickens, and pigs" that he mentioned. Why would you even want to argue whether or not cows are sentient in this thread? The only reason I posted that definition is because what he said made literally no sense to me. I wanted to know what he's talking about.
    I'm just making a point that even if you can find one billion benefits, you'll never get those to stick for a woman who doesn't want the pregnancy.

    Ctrl+F "sentience"

    0 results

    looks like that's not how scientists determine sentience

    try reading your sources once in a while
    Here ya go. This is one giant article on animal consciousness and its relationship to non-human sentience (plenty of sentiences to find with Ctrl+F). I haven't skimmed the whole thing yet, but go nuts.

    I swear to glob I thought your username was Mandi something something. My bad.
    Really? 0_o

    And concering Psychic's post, as well written and thoughtful as it is, its already been addressed before in this thread. That's the problem with your side of the debate. You just keep dragging up the same debunked positions over and over again, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Oh? That argument has been addressed? Lets bring it up again!
    And you only have one answer to this very valid argument! This isn't a matter of just outright denying people abortion because you believe it's murder; you're telling all of the women in America that you're a man, and since this bothers you, you aren't afraid to take away a basic right that every woman has concerning their body. This isn't the same as tattoos, drugs, or alcohol: the fetus is an extension of the mother: where the mother goes, the fetus goes; whatever nutrients the mother obtains, the fetus shares. Telling a mother what she can't do with her baby is like telling us guys what we can't do with out penises, and I sure as glob wouldn't put up with that (Adventure Time has given us great words for our vocabulary; I can tell you've seen it).
    "Your memories are connected, like links in a chain. Those same chains are what anchor us all together."
    -Naminé


    Pokemon X Team - French Playthrough
    *COMPLETE*
    Amphinobi | Noctali | Mentali | Farfaduvet | Darumacho | Carchakrok
    3DS FC: 0430 - 9679 - 6068
    IGN: Micah
    Friend Safari Type: Fire
    Friend Safari Pokemon: Magmar, Ninetales, Charmeleon


        Spoiler:- Credits, etc.:


  13. #1838
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    404

    Default

    To all those who contend that a human's (may that be zygote or actual human) right to live is more important than any of another humans rights (except for the right to live) I have this to say to you. You are going to have to give me your kidney and then nurse me back to health for the next nine months. You didn't plan on this, nor do you want to do this, but without it I'll die. Oh and with that you'll have to give up your job and anything else you were doing like school. Because I am going to completely take over your life.
    Here, you can go as far as saying if you need an organ transplant to survive, and I was the only compatible organ donor, then I may as well donate said organ. There's a limit to how far you can take the organ donor analogy. However, if the hypothetical situation of you needing a kidney transplant in order to keep living cropped up, and I was the only suitable donor that can be found in time, then I had better go through with donating a kidney.

    EDIT -
    Telling a mother what she can't do with her baby is like telling us guys what we can't do with out penises
    There's a big difference, the baby is a separate entity, even though it is connected to the mother. A penis, on the other hand, is part of a man, and there is at least one big restriction on what we can do with it, such as not using it to have sex with women that don't want it. Unfortunately, that does not stop some people, despite rape being a major crime.
    Last edited by JDavidC; 19th August 2012 at 3:46 AM.
    I will not trade for hacked/cloned pokemon.
    5th gen: I can breed max Sp.Att/Speed Zoruas with Extrasensory and Dark Pulse with a modest nature.

  14. #1839

    Default

    @SunnyC:

    I admit I might be misunderstanding something, but Iceberg said word for word "might as well die". I can't comprehend that. I have family that are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of their reach.

    [edit]

    And concerning your source Manifi, if you haven't read it why should I?
    Last edited by mattj; 19th August 2012 at 3:32 AM.

  15. #1840
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    @SunnyC:

    I admit I might be misunderstanding something, but Iceberg said word for word "might as well die". I can't comprehend that. I have family that are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of their reach.
    You just have a higher regard for life than we do.
    We can all agree that the second generation was either Pokémon's Golden Age or its Silver Age.

    Black and White gave me a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  16. #1841
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    A penis, on the other hand, is part of a man, and there is at least one big restriction on what we can do with it, such as not using it to have sex with women that don't want it.
    Well first, a woman is not allowed to rape someone with their body, either, so logically that comparison is moot.

    Second, by omitting women from the subject of involuntary sex, your statement implies men face some unique obligation not being able to rape that women don't. This is worse.

    Third, you just don't bring up something that all good men would do anyway, like not raping people, as if they are following some noble responsibility, especially not to use it in an argument to compel a the same group that men are obligated not to hurt, women, to take on an obligation of their own. And you don't use that given point that isn't even on subject in an argument where you compare it to a practice, abortion, that the entire debate is centered around questioning, or it's implied that the legitimacy of rape is questionable. And it's not.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    I admit I might be misunderstanding something, but Iceberg said word for word "might as well die". I can't comprehend that. I have family that are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of their reach.
    Really? I'm sorry to hear that. There's a possibility that I might have a different standard for human thoughts though, because I've been put next to a lot of delayed people and been shown by professionals the specific signs of human thought behind their exterior. But I understand how hearing those words would be irreconcilable, especially since different people might not be able to see those signs as well as me, and mistakenly think that they are incapable of basic human emotion.
    Last edited by CSolarstorm; 19th August 2012 at 6:36 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  17. #1842
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Shiver Star
    Posts
    2,136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    EDIT -
    There's a big difference, the baby is a separate entity, even though it is connected to the mother. A penis, on the other hand, is part of a man, and there is at least one big restriction on what we can do with it, such as not using it to have sex with women that don't want it. Unfortunately, that does not stop some people, despite rape being a major crime.
    I would have missed this if SunnyC hadn't replied to it, because you edited that part in after I posted my post. Why didn't you just make a new post, instead of making editing an old post? There were two posts after you.

    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but are you saying that abortion should be illegal because rape is illegal?
    We can all agree that the second generation was either Pokémon's Golden Age or its Silver Age.

    Black and White gave me a theory that the Pokémon world and the Mother world are one in the same.

    Werster is without a doubt the Pokémon Master.

  18. #1843
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The House That Never Was
    Posts
    1,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SunnyC View Post
    Well first, a woman is not allowed to rape someone with their body, either, so logically that comparison is moot.

    Second, by omitting women from the subject of involuntary sex, your statement implies men face some unique obligation not being able to rape that women don't. This is worse.

    Third, you just don't bring up something that all good men would do anyway, like not raping people, as if they are following some noble responsibility, especially not to use it in an argument to compel a the same group that men are obligated not to hurt, women, to take on an obligation of their own. And you don't use that given point that isn't even on subject in an argument where you compare it to a practice, abortion, that the entire debate is centered around questioning, or it's implied that the legitimacy of rape is questionable. And it's not.
    Good grief, I've stirred up some very good trouble and a little bad trouble. Please don't think I ever meant to question the illegality of rape, as this was not my intention. I just wanted to make a point that men aren't told they can't do certain things (OTHER THAN RAPE), so why should women? It's her uterus; if she wants it empty, then she could certainly make it empty.
    "Your memories are connected, like links in a chain. Those same chains are what anchor us all together."
    -Naminé


    Pokemon X Team - French Playthrough
    *COMPLETE*
    Amphinobi | Noctali | Mentali | Farfaduvet | Darumacho | Carchakrok
    3DS FC: 0430 - 9679 - 6068
    IGN: Micah
    Friend Safari Type: Fire
    Friend Safari Pokemon: Magmar, Ninetales, Charmeleon


        Spoiler:- Credits, etc.:


  19. #1844
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    2,921

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Manafi's Dream View Post
    Good grief, I've stirred up some very good trouble and a little bad trouble. Please don't think I ever meant to question the illegality of rape, as this was not my intention. I just wanted to make a point that men aren't told they can't do certain things (OTHER THAN RAPE), so why should women? It's her uterus; if she wants it empty, then she could certainly make it empty.
    Actually I liked your comparison, and I even used something like it before when bringing up The Daily Show segment where they talked about making it illegal to masturbate in order to protect sperm. I'm not looking for trouble with anyone, I'm just disturbed that JDavidC would draw that comparison in specific - I think he turned what you said around when he used rape as an example of something men are not allowed to do with their body. To me it was like, 'well duh.' And so I deconstructed all the problems with him using rape as an example, not in the least the fact that both genders are not allowed to rape. I was a little ruthless in doing it, but if it helps at all, I rewrote the post a few times to seem as neutral as possible, in an effort to not get angry at him personally but just explain how it concerned me.
    Last edited by CSolarstorm; 19th August 2012 at 8:44 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albus Dumbledore
    Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting injury, and remedying it.

    My deviantART
    | Suggested Alternative News: The Juice Rap News and The Corbett Report

  20. #1845
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    404

    Default

    @Marioguy: There wasn't much activity (that I saw in this thread) last night for me, so I thought maybe a short edit wouldn't hurt instead of another new post. Maybe that was an idea I just should have scrapped. However, I am not going to say "Rape is illegal, therefore abortions should be illegal.", that isn't my argument.

    Anyway, when I said the following:
    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC
    A penis, on the other hand, is part of a man, and there is at least one big restriction on what we can do with it, such as not using it to have sex with women that don't want it.
    (which should have women actually changed to people, to fix a problem I see with it), it was to say there IS a government restriction that applies to what men do with their penises (something women don't have, obviously). I certainly don't think anyone here is condoning actually going through with such behaviour. What I'm trying to say is that I have a problem with unborn children being compared to a male reproductive organ as if they were merely body parts (the latter one is), which was the point of the post. I then pointed out something you obviously CANNOT do with the latter. It isn't meant to be some tactic to make Manafi's Dream look bad BTW, it was purely meant to counter this statement:
    Telling a mother what she can't do with her baby is like telling us guys what we can't do with out penises
    BTW, I never said in that sentence it was perfectly fine for women to do something like rape either. Maybe this is my Autism getting in the way, but I'm not exactly sure why SunnyC disagrees with what I've said like this. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't be interested in what someone does with their own body, but when someone else has to pay the price, that's when it's different. Abortion is nowhere near as straightforward an issue as we would like it to be.
    Last edited by JDavidC; 19th August 2012 at 11:28 AM.
    I will not trade for hacked/cloned pokemon.
    5th gen: I can breed max Sp.Att/Speed Zoruas with Extrasensory and Dark Pulse with a modest nature.

  21. #1846
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    This is the core difference between our positions. We value all innocent human life. You only value human life that fits your idea of ideal. There really cannot be reconciliation.

    How can you look at severely mentally disabled children and think "meh, they might as well die..."?
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnyC
    That's not really what Iceberg said, though. She said 'if you are so severely retarded that you are beyond basic human thought' than someone's life might not be valuable. All of the mentally disabled people I've known (since I've gone a Special Education school) even if they can't speak, are obviously capable of basic human thought. The only ones that aren't capable of any basic human thought probably fall in the category of people who will be 'vegetables' forever.

    She really should have used the word 'vegetable' instead of 'retarded' since anyone that I've ever known as 'retarded' is capable of basic human thought. She does not come off as a Social Darwinist, just pro euthanization. Although you may reject that as well. Are you sure you did not misunderstand her?
    SunnyC is right. I should have used the term vegetable. If you are capable of human thought then you should only be euthanized if you want to (there is a very interesting case in the Canadian courts right now about a severely ill woman fighting for the right to die, since she is so much pain). However, if you are a vegetable and will never have any thought, there isn't much point for you to live. Unless you have a someone (family/friend) who is willing to take care of you completely, why live? You cannot think, you cannot feel, you cannot do anything. You'll just be a drain on the system. This is the same as an unwanted fetus. If the fetus' parents want to take care of it, or have a friend/family member/etc. that is willing too take care of it, than abortion is not really necessary. But if the fetus is unwanted and nobody will care for it it will only drain the system and above all else, have a miserable life. So why not end the fetus while it cannot feel or think. I know there is adoption, but orphanages are pretty full nowadays. On top of that the world is over-populated enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattj
    I admit I might be misunderstanding something, but Iceberg said word for word "might as well die". I can't comprehend that. I have family that are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of their reach.
    I did mention in my post a point which you blatantly ignored in the quote you took out. My point was that is there is someone that loves and cares for the severely retarded than there is no reason for them to die. My point was that if they are alone in the world and surviving off of peoples hard-earned tax payers' dollars than there isn't much of a point for the non-sentient to live. You conveniently ignored this from your signature though. I'm sure you could edit any speech with quotes like you did to make the person out to be something they are not. In fact, just for fun I'm going to edit a bunch of Hitler's speeches to make him sound like a real nice guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by marioguy
    Even if I was pro-life, I would still agree with you on this point. While a fetus has potential to be something, a severely retarded person does have potential to be anything.

    I see that mattj has literally put you on the record by quoting you in his sig. He did this to me once also. Unfortunately, I don't think it's against the rules. Either that, or Profesco really doesn't care. What I did was put in my sig a quote with the last paragraph of this vm from a mod on the Zelda Universe Forums. This was during one of mattj's bans from ZU. They have stricter rules there.
    It was always my goal in life to be misquoted in someones signature. I'm flattered that I pissed mattj off so much I earned a place in his rank. After all, to quote Eminem "God sent me to piss the world off"
    FC: 1463 5647 1777


    Come check out my Trade Shop!!!

  22. #1847
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    INSIDE...
    Posts
    2,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iceberg View Post
    I did mention in my post a point which you blatantly ignored in the quote you took out. My point was that is there is someone that loves and cares for the severely retarded than there is no reason for them to die. My point was that if they are alone in the world and surviving off of peoples hard-earned tax payers' dollars than there isn't much of a point for the non-sentient to live. You conveniently ignored this from your signature though. I'm sure you could edit any speech with quotes like you did to make the person out to be something they are not. In fact, just for fun I'm going to edit a bunch of Hitler's speeches to make him sound like a real nice guy.
    Although I'm not really thrilled to be defending this, let me draw a comparison: let's say there is an autistic person who graduated high school, but is unable to attend/finish college for various reasons, or hold a job for long periods. So somewhat low-functioning, I suppose, but certainly not debilitated enough to lack self-awareness. Let's also say there is a man who lives alone on welfare; he's getting up very close to retirement age, but is depressed to the point of being almost incapacitated. He has no remaining family, or the remainder is all estranged, and for the most part, he's a quintessential picture of the hermit old people who live on top of the hill in huge, creepy mansions that kids often go to TP on Halloween.

    Although the autistic is almost assuredly never going to marry and is going to rely on his caretakers his whole life, he is capable of complex thought, if not in the same vein as others. So is the older man, but he, like you said above, has no one to love him. He's shuttered himself up completely, and is too depressed to bring himself to come out of it to boot. Both are living off government aid.

    Should we euthanize either of them, withdraw their benefits, or do something else? Why, then? Because of disabilities, because of age, or because of who they have left in their lives?


    SHINY RAINBOWS BECKON YOU TO THE ARTIST'S CORNER

    Trainer Name: Misha
    3DS FC: 5112-3720-5938
    Friend Safari: Fighting; Pancham, Machoke, Hariyama


  23. #1848
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Halifax, Nova Scotia
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiserin View Post
    Although I'm not really thrilled to be defending this, let me draw a comparison: let's say there is an autistic person who graduated high school, but is unable to attend/finish college for various reasons, or hold a job for long periods. So somewhat low-functioning, I suppose, but certainly not debilitated enough to lack self-awareness. Let's also say there is a man who lives alone on welfare; he's getting up very close to retirement age, but is depressed to the point of being almost incapacitated. He has no remaining family, or the remainder is all estranged, and for the most part, he's a quintessential picture of the hermit old people who live on top of the hill in huge, creepy mansions that kids often go to TP on Halloween.

    Although the autistic is almost assuredly never going to marry and is going to rely on his caretakers his whole life, he is capable of complex thought, if not in the same vein as others. So is the older man, but he, like you said above, has no one to love him. He's shuttered himself up completely, and is too depressed to bring himself to come out of it to boot. Both are living off government aid.

    Should we euthanize either of them, withdraw their benefits, or do something else? Why, then? Because of disabilities, because of age, or because of who they have left in their lives?
    I see where you are coming from. But the difference is that the people you mentioned are capable of thought and therefore their own decision. While yes they are a drain on society, it is an acceptable drain. They are sentient. If one of them became so miserable they wanted to be euthanized, we should let them. The difference between them and a vegetable is the vegetable cannot choose for itself. Just like a fetus. So therefore the choice should be in the caretakers hands.
    FC: 1463 5647 1777


    Come check out my Trade Shop!!!

  24. #1849
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kieken
    Posts
    247

    Default

    For the last time, if you don't agree with the rules stated in this thread, stop posting in it. As you can see below, a fetus is alive, human, a separate entity from the mother and isn't a parasite. It cannot be determined if it's sentient or not and an arbitrary boundary for when it is, well, arbitrary.

    Imagine if you are debied abortion because for some reason you filed for abortion when the boundary had already been crossed. Ridiculous.

    Laws have almost always favored humans, so dragging the rights of animals into this won't help. And when looking at certain laws, both born and unborn non-humans have more rights than a human, born or unborn.

    Finally, pregnancy isn't torture in normal cases. Some women actually want to have children, so it can't be that excruciating.

    Doing anything against your will for months on end however, if you argue it like so, isn't that great to endure, but not as worse as torture if the torture is the forcing to not abort, but not the pregnancy itself. Pregnancy is hard, but not excruciating. Or else, as I have stated before, I'm ashamed my mother had to bring me into this world. But she would laugh at me being ashamed about such a thing, because it was worth it. Perhaps the pro-choice side is getting at that: they don't get the benefits of the child, because it is given up for adoption. As something like a compensation would seem extremely awry, let's just keep it at accident or rape equals choice of abortion at any point, early or late term?

    Even if medicine advances enough that up to freshly fertilized eggs can be transferred from one woman to the other, it cannot be done without the mother's consent to 'save' it from abortion, because the 'egg' has half of her DNA, comparable to a right of privacy that sperm or DNA cannot be taken or used without consent. And we're talking about sperm being used for fertilisation without consent being illegal, unless anyone wants to fight something like that too. Any word about the father's choice or responsibilities in different situations?




    - If it were true that a fetus is not alive, it could not be killed. It would be a mistake to object to killing something that isn't alive in the first place.
    But a fetus is alive. This is beyond question. Even before conception, the two reproductive cells are alive. Thus, the argument that a fetus is nonliving may be often repeated—spreading and multiplying in popular discussion—but it is dead wrong. As an argument for abortion being legal, it cannot stand.

    - Some admit that a fetus is alive, but do not believe that it is human. Like the previous argument, this would clearly make a difference, because most of us understand that killing a cow is not murder. If the fetus is not human, it cannot be entitled to human rights.
    But, just like the previous objection, it is completely false. When two human reproductive cells unite, the result is a fertilized egg with a full set of human genes. Obviously, the fetus is not fully developed before birth, but it doesn't have to be to be human; neither is a seven-year-old, and seven-year-olds are undoubtedly human. One doesn't need to be an adult to be human.

    - Some come very close to realizing that a fetus is a human by saying that it is merely part of a human. If a fetus were merely an extension of the mother, abortion would be no different than removing a kidney or an arm. Having one's tonsils out or having an amputation is not killing anyone, only removing a part of the body. The implied right of privacy (first cited in Roe v. Wade) plays prominently in this argument, since a woman has control over her own body, and if she needs an arm or an appendix removed by a surgeon, the government shouldn't be interfering.
    Just like the previous two, it would make sense if it were true, but the fetus is not simply a part of the mother. It has some of the mother's DNA, that's for sure, but it also has some of the father's DNA. Your arm has your DNA (which you inherited from both your parents), not yours mixed with someone else's. A fetus is not part of a human, it is a human.

    - Some see no problem with getting rid of a fetus because they call it a parasite. It is inside another life form, it gains energy from the mother, and often causes other undesirable effects like morning sickness. Who would argue that a mosquito should be protected?
    Before anything else, I want to point out how it blatantly contradicts two of the previous objections. Since only living things can be parasites, the idea of a nonliving fetus is incompatible with the parasitism argument. Also, a part of your body, like an arm or kidney, can never be a parasite even if it becomes dreadfully diseased. Therefore a fetus cannot simultaneously be a part of the mother and a parasite of the mother.
    Since a parasitic relationship must be between two organisms of different species, a fetus is not a parasite. Also, parasites usually enter the host from outside, while a fetus is born from reproductive cells—one of which is the mother's own. A fetus isn't taking energy from its host, and in fact the mother's body helps nourish the fetus. The relationship between a parasite and its host is fundamentally different from the one between a mother and offspring. The sole purpose of calling a fetus a parasite is to make it sound like it has done something worthy of death, which is self-serving and revisionist. A fetus is offspring, and offspring are not parasites of their mothers.

    - Some argue that without certain higher-order thoughts, a fetus is not a person. To be a person, you need self-awareness, rationality, and some specific emotional capabilities. A fetus, it is argued, is neither self-aware, nor rational, nor capable of advanced emotions.
    First, note that the personhood argument is stated dogmatically.
    [...]
    Third, with the fetus in a location that strongly hinders interaction with other persons, it's kinda hard to show that it couldn't start emoting or interacting rationally (on a newborn's level or slightly less) if it were outside its mother. Even a fetus three days before birth hasn't really interacted with the world. Thus this whole argument may reduce to "a fetus is in a location where it can't interact in certain ways." Of itself, it might not really be incapable of interacting using certain emotions.
    Fourth, it is not clear that personhood can be gained or lost. When a child is two hours old, it can't use language, it's reasoning is certainly minimalistic at best, and near-constant crying is not evidence of empathy. (And "self-aware" might be a poor label for some newborns.) I'm not sure a fetus can be excluded from personhood so easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by Profesco
    If you have these qualities (or whichever qualities the philosophical community comes to a consensus on), you are considered a person, in the sense that you are an agent worthy of moral consideration; if you haven't, you aren't.
    In the bold emphasis I've added, you see the foundation of the personhood argument. You also see its chief flaw. Just about everyone agrees that plenty of non-persons have rights and deserve moral consideration. I know of no one who would argue that a dog is a person, but dog fighting is rightly outlawed. We should have no problem recognizing that a fetus should begiven more consideration than a dog.
    Some argue that the law is species-ist if something like a cow can be killed while a fetus can't. "Why should the law favor humans?" they ask. Yet the laws of just about every nation favor humans, since no nations of which I am aware allow animals to, say, own property or enter into business contracts. The decision in Roe v. Wade was supposed to be based on language in the Constitution; it was not ostensibly an interpretation designed to radically change how we view the relationship between human and animal rights. And it is also significant that no one seems to question the general use of the phrase "human rights" except in an abortion debate.
    Therefore, while the first four pro-choice arguments were completely false, the fifth is uncertain but irrelevant, unless one assumes incorrectly that persons are the only ones who have rights according to the law.
    [*]Don't describe pregnancy or delivery with terms of exaggerated horror.
    ]I understand that carrying a baby is difficult and that delivery can be very painful for many women. I do not seek to downplay these facts. However, some describe these in terms that approach actual torture, almost as though someone is purposely inflicting pain on the woman. It is also wise to remember that some women actually want to have children. It is not honest to describe pregnancy or delivery in terms that make them sound like things no woman would want to endure. Some also state that abortion can be more painful than delivery, making the whole argument from painful childbirth self-refuting.

  25. #1850
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    OK, I think it'd be easier if you respond with all your points later. I'll just say for now that I view the mother and the unborn child as equals, at the very least for the sake of erring on the side of caution.
    First of all, I will respond in ways that I feel are appropriate; Wrong, you are not erring on the side of caution, but whatever your unscientific morality likes best, because in reality, woman and fetus are not equals...science proves this fact.


    "THIS IS SCIENCE:
    HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
    As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."

    http://galerouth.blogspot.com/

    Call pregnancy what you want, but scientifically, pregnancy is an invasion of the woman's body, and she has the right to remedy the situation in ways she feel are best, not you.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    Also, with abortion, you ARE taking actions that will harm someone else. In this case, the mother is taking action that will bring harm (actually death) to someone else, the unborn child within her, so it's actually the same kind of thing as with drugs.
    AGAIN with this unscientific morality, what you are talking about is a woman choosing to remove an non-sentient, human parasite from HER body; you kill sentient beings everyday, and you don't give a crap about that at all --- and don't pretend you.

    And FYI, a fetus is not a child or baby, there is no such thing as an "unborn child" that is an oxymoron and misnomer of the human development chart; It's clear you don't care about SCIENCE at all and loves to using emotional fallacies because you lack an logical argument.

    There's a difference between having an abortion and using drug ( legal and/or illegal) while pregnant and knowing it could cause fetal harm and deciding to give birth to the fetus, anyway-- and you that, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    @blackpeppper - IMHO, you're really grasping at straws with semantics, by using solely the way definitions are written to justify terms such as 'parasite' and 'reproductive slavery'.
    Actually, I'm using science and LAW to back up my argument, some people call it being "intellectually honest" ... maybe you should try it, someday.


    “When individuals of the same species parasitize individuals of the same species, they are referred to as intraspecific parasites.”
    http://krohde.wordpress.com/article/...k923bc3gp4-51/



    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    Regarding parasites, they just leech, they do not continue the bloodline of the host. The unborn child was created in the mother's womb, and does NOT have a choice to go elsewhere.
    OMFG, who are you to tell me that I'm wrong, when YOU don't even know that Conception occurs in the Fallopian tubes, not the uterus?

    BTW, A ZYGOTE DOESN'T HAVE THE MENTALLY ABILITY TO CHOOSE ANYTHING --- EMOTIVE WORDS, WILL NOT WORK WITH ME.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    Furthermore, it does not 'hijack' the mother's immune system, it sends signals to tell the mother's body a baby that needs care has implanted, there's a world of difference.
    LOL, then you prove all those scientists and their peer-reviews studies about how the zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE...wrong.

    the links proving my point are at galerouth blogspot com.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    Without stuff like this, we would go EXTINCT. There have already been several links to the American College of Paediatrics put in near the end of this thread where scientists that SPECIALISE in growth state that life starts at conception.
    Wow, now you are grasping at straws.

    THE SPERM AND OVUM ARE ALIVE, SO LIFE DIDN'T START AT CONCEPTION, JUST A NEW HUMAN BEING, AND IT'S A BIOLOGICALLY PARASITE FOR 9 MONTHS TO A WOMAN'S BODY.

    the human race is over 7 billion, we are not going EXTINCT anytime soon --- so stop grasping at straws.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    Furthermore, IMHO, the law is wrong, the US Supreme Court screwed up Roe vs Wade on a monumental scale, as I have stated before. Only the dissenting judges expressed anything that was common sense.
    I don't know what you said before, but what I quoted was about the US' constitution and human reproduction, noting about roe vs wade... AGAIN, so stop grasping at straws.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    Pro-choicers really need to stop using such loaded terms as 'parasite' if they want to be taken seriously by a lot of pro-lifers.
    LOL, why should want to be taken seriously by you people? you pro-life people lack a logical argument most of the time, use emotional fallacies AND STRAWMANS, and down-play any PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE without proving it wrong ... pro-life people at their hearts are nothing more than CREATIONISTS.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDavidC View Post
    Finally, try to use scientific sources directly, instead of ranting weblogs if you can. If you can't do that, then at least try wikipedia articles that cite scientific papers (I do see you do some of this, though, but not for the science parts). I'm sorry, but I cannot take a source as http://galerouth.blogspot.com seriously at all.
    That's funny, since you have yet to prove scientifically that a fetus is NOT a parasite, you didn't know that conception happens in the fallopian tubes ....and I'm not posting all of galerouth's blog on this thread.

    deal with it.

Page 74 of 75 FirstFirst ... 2464707172737475 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •