First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Just the Science: When does human life begin?
9211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 5/31/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Because, like I said, they can always decide to change that.


That’s not always true. I’ll allow that in most cases you’re right, but there are exceptions. Take illegal immigrants in southern Texas. The state has laws barring illegal immigrants from getting driver’s licenses and has made the penalty for hiring an illegal immigrant so severe that many businesses have ceased to do so.

These are recent developments, illegal immigration is not. In other words these people arrived into a system where they could thrive and now-through no fault of their own-they can’t. There’s nothing they can really do about it. They’re not allowed to drive and can’t afford cars because they’re not allowed to work. So, they get on welfare and absorb our tax dollars.

They’re not capable of sustaining themselves. They need support. While a fetus leeches off of one woman these people leech off the entire nation-and considering that we’re further in debt than we’ve ever been I’d say that’s an issue that needs to be dealt with. Either we need to allow free immigration and stop barring the aliens from work and transportation or we need to build a wall. Either way, if you argue that because the child isn’t capable of sustaining itself its human rights (the right to life,) then that same logic extends to these illegal immigrants-and really, any individual (including newborn children,) who depends on someone else for his/her survival.

I’m sorry, and while I think there are strong arguments for abortion, I don’t think yours is one.


Coldwave123 wrote:

Who cares? Not the people paying for abortions. alive? dead? Do you remember why we made them legal? Because people were getting them any way. Better in a clinic then in someones basement. If you don't want to have an abortion great. Good for you. Any one who does and has the money should be able too. It's your body, and nobody should ever be able to tell you what to do with it.

My mom always said "I brought you into this world, and I'll take you out of it." and I was like 16 before she stopped.

Lets get real any way, your objection to abortion has nothing to do with any kind of science but religion. Lots of us don't have your religion and we don't care how alive it is.


Alright, let’s get real. In my religious point of view a fetus is not a human and should not be treated like it. In the Old Testament of the bible there’s a mitzvah that says the penalty for taking a human’s life is death. Yet, the penalty for attacking a woman and causing the abortion of her fetus is a hefty fine. If that fetus was a human then why wouldn't the killer be put to death? Because it's not a fetus-and, of course-the bible says that the mitzvah were handed down directly from God.

Aside this, the defining attribute of a human in the Judeo/Christian/Muslim line is the soul. In the New Testament of the Christian bible the word translated to “soul,” is the Greek “psyche,” the literal meaning of which is quite obvious to anyone who speaks English. A Catholic Encyclopedia defined the “soul,” as “the sources of all thought,” and the agnostic writer Paul Davies used the word as a synonym for cognition in his book “God and the New Physics.”

In other words a human being is given moral significant and defined as a human being by their cognitive abilities. A fetus does not have a brain and therefore cannot think for itself. With this understood I do not in any way believe that a fetus is human. Add in the concept of circumstantial morality introduced by Jesus in the NT and I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with abortion.

My whole point is that we shouldn’t allow religion to make decisions for us. My point is that our laws should not acknowledge religious sentiments and moral significant. They should be based strictly on a secular and scientific buttress. Our laws protect human life-a zygote, scientifically-poses human life. The laws should apply and its only when we allow religious sentiment, the desire for control, and political theology to cloud our judgment that we call this into question.


The idea that abortions are just as common in areas where they’re illegal as they are in areas where they’re legal spawns from a single study. This study was held by “Planned Parenthood,” and compared America to Mexico and other third world countries. I give this study the same level of respect I give to studies about global warming funded by the oil industry. It’s a load of crap.

One way or the other, this thread isn't about rather or not abortion should be legal. It's about the scientific status of a fetus. I find it highly amusing that when presented with facts they don't like, many people call on the "you're just a religious cook," card even though they have absolutely no idea how modern and liberal my religious views really are.... Religiously, I support abortion-but I don't believe in mixing church and state. I don't believe in allowing religious sentiment to define human life.


CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

Wow again an nice read Alford but i guess I will say my stance on abortion again. Abortion should not be used unless the mother is going to die giving birth, is going to die during the pregnancy or if an women/child is molested/raped. Abortion should not be used at any means as a form of contraceptive at all, because if women and men are really to fucking stupid to use condoms (latex or sheep skin) or women to use birth control then it is there own problems. It is in human nature to want to have sex because it serves 2 purposes and those are for populating the earth of course and pleasure for both parties. I personally think that life does begin at conception, and ever life is scared because that's the way I was raised but I do tend to think a little more outside the box than my parents do.


I'm glad you liked it, sorry for the late reply. Our opinions are similar.



That was well put, you actually made me think about my own reasons for supporting abortion. I think that being it's own "human" doesn't make it alive and more then then a computer with out a motherboard could turn on and start working. Is taking the life of a few cells really the same as taking the life as a fully functioning human? I hardly think so. Obviously your well educated on the issue and I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look up the facts... but I remember reading in the paper a few days ago that U.S. law states that if the baby can breath on it's own it's considered a live. If the body does have soul, it's place is in the brain, with out a fully functioning brain and a sense of "self" I see no reason to stop abortions. The majority of people I hope feel the same way, or the system is really badly broken in more then one country.

They already looked into this issue as much as it needs to be looked into. The choice has been made with the best information they had at the time. Now like so many other choices made by governments around the world and through out history we have to live with it. It's a "choice" choices are always good. People should alway be free to choose when things only effects themselves.
9211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 5/31/09 , edited 5/31/09

Ahaz wrote:


Coldwave123 wrote:
Do you remember why we made them legal? Because people were getting them any way.



Bullshit. The real reason abortion was legalized is because the liberals, like the conservatives, are power hungry. This isn’t about religion vs. secularism. It’s about control: hints most supporters of abortion are women, most “anti-choice” people are men. If we were really thinking “well they’re doing it anyway so let’s help these criminals do so safely,” we would’ve repealed national speed limits and a plethora of other public safety laws.

You see, public speed limits don’t do jack shit. Studies have proven that people drive at speeds they’re comfortable with. Don’t believe me? Look here:

http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/home/safety-setting-speed-limits/#CONCLUSION

Yet, you don't give a rats ass about that and nobody's trying to remove those and provide ways that are safer for you to endanger those around you...conclusion? Your reasoning is bullshit and you probably know it but you're pissed because your best "it's not human" arguement just got beat with the logic stick.

By the way, I'm an atheist and I'm against abortion and so was Bernard Nathanson whenever he wrote all that jazz that the opening post quotes. Like Nathanson, I'm also pro-life because I'm not a puppet who can be made to dance around with emotional imagery and these claims that fetuses are morally less significant than other humans. Because the fact is that humans are objects, sentient objects, but objects none the less. None of us are worth more than your average rock and all of us can be replaced. Yet, we make laws for mutual benefit and if you start bending those laws and it all falls apart.


My logic is sound. It's just not your logic. So when some comes up with a "No-choice" campaign to reduce the population I'll be right there with you trying to stop it. But as long as nobodies trying to kill my un-born baby against my will I am fine with it, the majority of us are. It's the over vocal minority groups on both sides trying to force there choices on other people. I'm not mad because you have some issue with when I fetus is life, I mad cause your taking away a choice from me. I like to make my own choices. Stop waisting time and money. If you don't like them try and stop people important in your own life from being in a position were they think they need to have one. That would actaully make a difference and not hurt other people who don't share your beliefs. If your going to sit there and tell me your worried about the unborn babies already from that post I can tell that's not what you really care about. You care about the issues. But they're aren't your issues.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/31/09 , edited 5/31/09

Coldwave123 wrote:

That was well put, you actually made me think about my own reasons for supporting abortion. I think that being it's own "human" doesn't make it alive and more then then a computer with out a motherboard could turn on and start working. Is taking the life of a few cells really the same as taking the life as a fully functioning human? I hardly think so. Obviously your well educated on the issue and I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look up the facts... but I remember reading in the paper a few days ago that U.S. law states that if the baby can breath on it's own it's considered a live. If the body does have soul, it's place is in the brain, with out a fully functioning brain and a sense of "self" I see no reason to stop abortions. The majority of people I hope feel the same way, or the system is really badly broken in more then one country.

They already looked into this issue as much as it needs to be looked into. The choice has been made with the best information they had at the time. Now like so many other choices made by governments around the world and through out history we have to live with it. It's a "choice" choices are always good. People should alway be free to choose when things only effects themselves.


I agree that if you can do something without trespassing on the rights of anyone else you should be completely free to that action. It’s for this reason that I wish my nation would adopt Canada’s liberal drug laws, Germany’s legal prostitution, and allow gay marriage. I don’t believe that these practices influence anybody who isn’t consenting-it’s nobody’s business.

Abortion is a different story. Religious, again, I don’t believe a fetus is human-but if I were to defend it on this ground then I would be employing the same logic as the KKK. I believe the defining attribute for a human is the soul. They believe it’s a unique number of skin pigments. Why is it okay for me to say, “Anyone who doesn’t have a soul isn’t human,” and then start to execute anybody outside of my definition anytime they inconvenience me but we don’t extend that same right to the KKK or Nazi? It’s the same thing, if you’re honest, strong minded, and logical. So, when it comes to humanitarian laws I think we need to use science. We cannot rely on religious sentiment to identify what it is to be a human.

Once we start doing that it gets extended on, and on, and on. Now, people guffaw at the idea that it will go further. Let me underline what I’m saying by pointing out that I’m dispassionate about early term abortions. I –do- think they should be illegal, but I wouldn’t actively seek to make them such because honestly I don’t care. It’s like euthanizing long term coma patients. It should be illegal, and is illegal, but that’s not a law I would work to enforce. They’re brain dead, I don’t care.

Late term abortions, however, I consider to be the largest form of genocide in the world. It’s a violent crime against humanity. You see, these children do have souls. They can think for themselves, they can survive independently, they can feel pain, they actually –scream- and fight whenever you abort them.

The silent scream captured the whole event on tape. The child’s legs are torn off. Then the arms. It is then turned upside down and decapitated. This feels to the unborn baby the same way it would feel to you or me. It’s a long, drawn out, and agonizing process which ends in murder.

Now, if they had legalized early term abortion I might feel a bit more secure-but they didn’t just legalize early term abortions. They legalized ALL abortions under any circumstances and in any stage. (America has the most liberal abortion laws in the world.) After 32 weeks the child will not develop anymore in the womb. It's in no way different than a newborn child, yet aborting a 32 week old fetus is legal. Even partial birth abortion is legal. This amounts to smashing the child’s skull and sucking out the brains as it is being delivered. The mother then delivers the dead body. It does not have any health benefits for the mother, does not accomplish anything except inflicting a painful death an infant.

In many cases this has actually resulted to the baby being pushed back inside the mother (or the pregnancy intentionally delayed, causing profound discomfort for mother and child alike,) and then beginning the process. I do not understand how any civilized nation can accept this-but it reminds me of something a Nazi general said at the Nuremberg trials.
He was asked how Germany, one of the world’s most advanced and liberal nations, could systematically slaughter six million people and answered: “I am of the opinion that when for years, for decades, the doctrine is preached that Jews(the slave race,) are not even human, such as an outcome is inevitable.”

Interestingly enough a major figure in modern politics, Peter Singer (known for popularizing the term speicieism,) has recently begun to extend the abortion philosophy to newborn children under certain circumstances-and has earned himself a shockingly large (and growing,) group of followers. His logic is the same as the logic of abortion-the child is a leech on its mother-but extends beyond the birth point to the point where the child no longer needs to suckle.

I don’t see any good argument, without relying on emotional imagery and religious sentiment with no logical value, for abortion-except what Judith Thompson wrote about in her article which is only applicable to rape. I think if we seperate ourself from religious bias we'd all be against abortion.

The American legal system is unclear on when human life begins, but I do know that in Australia it's not until the first breath outside of the womb.
22 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Beds
Offline
Posted 6/1/09
A Physics teacher told me life only begins at 18 where you are deemed by the state as an adult and have left education and look towards the future of work and even then family, i guess he is right in a way, even though im 16 i still dont feel quite like im ready to take on responsibilty.

But in my personal opinion life begins when the child begins to develop speech for a few reasons that the child by this point should have self awareness of there idenity, which shapes who a person is. though im not suggesting that if a parent doesnt want a child that they should be legally be allowed to remove the child from exisitance.

But this is a good point when does life begin? and what limitations should be placed upon this rather taboo subject.

I know not all of you will agree but i hope you understand that a person really isint a person till they develop a personality and that in my opinon all infants look much the same till theyre like 3 =P
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/12/09 , edited 7/12/09

Darko_Matics wrote:

A Physics teacher told me life only begins at 18 where you are deemed by the state as an adult and have left education and look towards the future of work and even then family, i guess he is right in a way, even though im 16 i still dont feel quite like im ready to take on responsibilty.

But in my personal opinion life begins when the child begins to develop speech for a few reasons that the child by this point should have self awareness of there idenity, which shapes who a person is. though im not suggesting that if a parent doesnt want a child that they should be legally be allowed to remove the child from exisitance.

But this is a good point when does life begin? and what limitations should be placed upon this rather taboo subject.

I know not all of you will agree but i hope you understand that a person really isint a person till they develop a personality and that in my opinon all infants look much the same till theyre like 3 =P


Human life begins upon conception, that’s a scientific fact. I think some posts previously made in this thread demonstrate that quite clearly. There’s really not very much room for debate on this fact…after all, it is a fact and in the words of Ronald Reagan facts are stubborn things. So, now we have to address your statement. You say that the child in question isn’t a person until they develop a personality.

Well, recent studies actually suggest that children begin to develop personal characteristics such as taste in food/music, mood disposition, and interpersonal bonds to live birth. By six months a fetus can be taught when to kick, or how to move to rhythm of its mother’s voice. In fact, there are actually medical and parenting books concerning methods of bonding with a preborn baby. These include listening to their favorite songs, reading the cat and the hat, or simply giving them attention by patting your tummy and chattering with them. Prenatal psychologists have even discovered that fetuses can develop an attitude on life prior to live birth. In other words, the fetus does in fact have a personality.

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/1/T010608.asp
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51972

So, according to you even a fetus is a person. We know that scientifically a fetus is also a human. This would suggest then that persons are human and humans are persons, but that’s not necessarily true. Logically, you can reduce this to three possibilities.

1. All persons are human and all humans are persons.
2. There are persons that are not human. Okay, this one requires a bit of imagination. I suppose you could say that if Elves such as those portrayed in Fantasy Novels existed, they’d be persons but clearly not human. It’s just a concept.
3. There are humans that aren’t persons. We’ve seen this throughout history. The Greeks said that newborn babies aren’t persons. The Nazi said that Jews are not human. In Dred Scott the US Supreme Court ruled that blacks are not humans. In Roe v. Wade they ruled that fetuses weren’t human. This is bigotry, yes, but the title doesn’t make it necessarily wrong.

So, what’s YOUR answer.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09

Ahaz wrote:


Darko_Matics wrote:

A Physics teacher told me life only begins at 18 where you are deemed by the state as an adult and have left education and look towards the future of work and even then family, i guess he is right in a way, even though im 16 i still dont feel quite like im ready to take on responsibilty.

But in my personal opinion life begins when the child begins to develop speech for a few reasons that the child by this point should have self awareness of there idenity, which shapes who a person is. though im not suggesting that if a parent doesnt want a child that they should be legally be allowed to remove the child from exisitance.

But this is a good point when does life begin? and what limitations should be placed upon this rather taboo subject.

I know not all of you will agree but i hope you understand that a person really isint a person till they develop a personality and that in my opinon all infants look much the same till theyre like 3 =P


Human life begins upon conception, that’s a scientific fact. I think some posts previously made in this thread demonstrate that quite clearly. There’s really not very much room for debate on this fact…after all, it is a fact and in the words of Ronald Reagan facts are stubborn things. So, now we have to address your statement. You say that the child in question isn’t a person until they develop a personality.

Well, recent studies actually suggest that children begin to develop personal characteristics such as taste in food/music, mood disposition, and interpersonal bonds to live birth. By six months a fetus can be taught when to kick, or how to move to rhythm of its mother’s voice. In fact, there are actually medical and parenting books concerning methods of bonding with a preborn baby. These include listening to their favorite songs, reading the cat and the hat, or simply giving them attention by patting your tummy and chattering with them. Prenatal psychologists have even discovered that fetuses can develop an attitude on life prior to live birth. In other words, the fetus does in fact have a personality.

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/1/T010608.asp
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51972

So, according to you even a fetus is a person. We know that scientifically a fetus is also a human. This would suggest then that persons are human and humans are persons, but that’s not necessarily true. Logically, you can reduce this to three possibilities.

1. All persons are human and all humans are persons.
2. There are persons that are not human. Okay, this one requires a bit of imagination. I suppose you could say that if Elves such as those portrayed in Fantasy Novels existed, they’d be persons but clearly not human. It’s just a concept.
3. There are humans that aren’t persons. We’ve seen this throughout history. The Greeks said that newborn babies aren’t persons. The Nazi said that Jews are not human. In Dred Scott the US Supreme Court ruled that blacks are not humans. In Roe v. Wade they ruled that fetuses weren’t human. This is bigotry, yes, but the title doesn’t make it necessarily wrong.

So, what’s YOUR answer.


True, life begins upon conception, but at an early point, its nothing more then a random mass of cells, and shouldn't really be called "human". Its just a random mass of duplicating cells, you wouldn't call a mass of cells in a test tube or petri dish "human" would you ? And it is the womans body, if she doesn't want it in her, then its her right to get rid of it.
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/12/09 , edited 7/12/09

Allhailodin True, life begins upon conception, but at an early point, its nothing more then a random mass of cells, and shouldn't really be called "human". Its just a random mass of duplicating cells, you wouldn't call a mass of cells in a test tube or petri dish "human" would you ? And it is the womans body, if she doesn't want it in her, then its her right to get rid of it.


I think you completely missed the point. It’s not about what I would call human. The term human isn’t a philosophical word. It’s a scientific classification. Any animal included within the human species is human. So, rather or not you want to accept it, random mass of duplicating cells. You don't have to call it human, but it is a human. Denying this is simply choosing ignorance.

As far as the Petri dish or test tube, I do not see how location is relevent.

It essentially amounts to accepting a comfortable lie to escape an obvious truth. This is fact. You can contradict it but fact it remains. This has been scientifically demonstrated previously in this thread. I can bring up the posts and the sources and the information if you wish, but if you argue that a fetus is not a human then I will have no place in this discussion. There is no point in attempting to converse with an individual who argues against fact.

The term ‘person,’ on the other hand is philosophical. That we can discuss.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09 , edited 7/12/09

Ahaz wrote:


Allhailodin True, life begins upon conception, but at an early point, its nothing more then a random mass of cells, and shouldn't really be called "human". Its just a random mass of duplicating cells, you wouldn't call a mass of cells in a test tube or petri dish "human" would you ? And it is the womans body, if she doesn't want it in her, then its her right to get rid of it.


I think you completely missed the point. It’s not about what I would call human. The term human isn’t a philosophical word. It’s a scientific classification. Any animal included within the human species is human. So, rather or not you want to accept it, that mass of cells is human. Denying this is simply choosing ignorance.

It essentially amounts to accepting a comfortable lie to escape an obvious truth. This is fact. You can contradict it but fact it remains. This has been scientifically demonstrated previously in this thread. I can bring up the posts and the sources and the information if you wish, but if you argue that a fetus is not a human then I will have no place in this discussion. There is no point in attempting to converse with an individual who argues against fact.

The term ‘person,’ on the other hand is philosophical. That we can discuss.


I know its a human being, any animal in a multicellular species, unborn or not is still a member of that species, thus an unborn human consisting of a few hundred to a few million cells is still human, but most people wouldn't call a mass of cells in a test tube a human being.

But I still favor abortion. Its a useful thing, for example, a child who is the result of a rape, why force the chick to keep the kid for 9 months and go through the process of giving birth to it, if she doesn't want it ? She doesn't want it, it wasn't her choice to have it, she should be able to get rid of it if she wants to.
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/12/09

Allhailodin
I know its a human being, any animal in a multicellular species, unborn or not is still a member of that species, thus an unborn human consisting of a few hundred to a few million cells is still human, but most people wouldn't call a mass of cells in a test tube a human being.


That’s true, but only because most people are ignorant and don’t understand the terms they’re using; moreover, the number one source for information on abortion is Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood also happens to be the number one provider of abortions in America. Although they define themselves as a ‘non-profit organization,’ they actually make 902.8 million US dollars off of abortion every year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVFm8II88b0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eabort73%2Ecom%2Findex%2Ephp%3F%2Fabortion%2Fmedical%5Ftestimony&feature=player_embedded

Imagine how confused we'd all be if the number one source for information on global warming was big oil.

So, this is really just a distraction. Rather or not people are informed on or ignorant of the truth is irrelevant. Shall we move on?


But I still favor abortion. Its a useful thing, for example, a child who is the result of a rape, why force the chick to keep the kid for 9 months and go through the process of giving birth to it, if she doesn't it ? She doesn't want it, it wasn't her choice to have it, she should be able to get rid of it if she wants to.


I wasn’t actually arguing against abortion. Why are we changing the topic? Well, fine. I’ll play along.

Yes, abortion is useful. So is genocide, that doesn’t morally justify it. You can make the nihilistic argument but in that case I again have no intention of talking to you. The nihilistic approach to this argument is a dodge. If you were a true nihilist you would not actually be active in this thread; therefore, please spare me the “but life doesn’t matter,” bullshit.

I don’t see a good argument against abortion in the case of rape. I do, however, see plenty of strong arguments against abortion in all other cases.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09 , edited 7/12/09

Ahaz wrote:


That’s true, but only because most people are ignorant and don’t understand the terms they’re using; moreover, the number one source for information on abortion is Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood also happens to be the number one provider of abortions in America. Although they define themselves as a ‘non-profit organization,’ they actually make 902.8 million US dollars off of abortion every year.


Nice, 902 million a year huh.

But that's their right, and is part of their business.

But, what "information" do people need to know about abortion ? You are getting rid of the fetus by "aborting" it, what more do people need to know ?


I wasn’t actually arguing against abortion. Why are we changing the topic? Well, fine. I’ll play along.

Yes, abortion is useful. So is genocide, that doesn’t morally justify it. You can make the nihilistic argument but in that case I again have no intention of talking to you. The nihilistic approach to this argument is a dodge. If you were a true nihilist you would not actually be active in this thread; therefore, please spare me the “but life doesn’t matter,” bullshit.

I don’t see a good argument against abortion in the case of rape. I do, however, see plenty of strong arguments against abortion in all other cases.


Things don't have to be moral to be useful technically, as yes what you say is true. But It really doesn't matter if abortion is right or wrong, because right and wrong are just personal opinions, and opinions have this interesting tendency to differ between people, so if abortion is wrong to someone it might not be wrong to someone else.

As for the "life doesn't matter bullshit" it might or it might not, some planets seem to do just fine without life. But but whatever the numbers are that get aborted, I do know that that many less lives in this word wont really make much of a difference, as that many more lives will come along soon enough and replace that void that was apparently created by those aborted kids.
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/12/09

Coldwave123 [
My logic is sound. It's just not your logic. So when some comes up with a "No-choice" campaign to reduce the population I'll be right there with you trying to stop it. But as long as nobodies trying to kill my un-born baby against my will I am fine with it, the majority of us are.


Actually, polls demonstrate that most people feel that abortion should be made illegal under at least some circumstances regardless of what the mother wants.



322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/12/09

Allhailodin


Nice, 902 million a year huh.

But that's their right, and is part of their business.


I’m not saying it’s not their right to make money. I’m saying that relying on Planned Parenthood for information on abortion, when they’re a business that profits from abortions, is academically idiotic. It’s essentially like watching a sham-wow commercial and expecting that this rag really is sown together from Zeus’s golden pubic hairs.





But, what "information" do people need to know about abortion? You are getting rid of the fetus by "aborting" it, what more do people need to know ?


People have a right to informed consent. We do not decide which information is important, but are required to release all related facts before engaging in an operation on any individual. Let’s do a hypothetical example.

A woman decides she wants to get some kind of cosmetic surgery. This particular operation is very safe, with a 98% success rate. The woman goes to get information from her doctor. The doctor thinks, “Well two percent is negligible,” and decides to tell the woman that there’s a 100% success rate so that she’ll pay for the procedure and he’ll make money. The woman goes into the operation not knowing about that 2% and happens to die.

To the doctor that 2% was irrelevant. To Planned Parenthood the scientific status of a fetus is also irrelevant. But they don’t have the right to make that decision. That’s up to the individuals attaining the operation.

Surely even you cannot object to this. Informed consent is an important right from which you will undoubtedly benefit from yourself.




Things don't have to be moral to be useful technically, as yes what you say is true. But It really doesn't matter if abortion is right or wrong, because right and wrong are just personal opinions, and opinions have this interesting tendency to differ between people, so if abortion is wrong to someone it might not be wrong to someone else.


Very well, I’ll make that concession. Questions of morality and philosophy are void; therefore, we must look at the question from a strictly legal and scientific perspective. We have laws protecting human life. A zygote is a human life. Abortion should be illegal. It’s only when we bring in questions of morality that this comes into question.

Now, you may argue that you support abortion because it benefits you just as you may argue that you support slavery because it benefits you. In this case you’re an evil person, but ignoring that you’ve also countered yourself. What benefits one person may not benefit another person. We cannot consider morality because it varies between individuals. We cannot consider things that vary between individuals. What is beneficial and what is not beneficial varies between individuals; therefore, on your own argument rather or not abortion is beneficial is just as irrelevant as rather it is right or wrong.

What is useful also varies between individuals so that is irrelevant. Everything is irrelevant except that which is universa.l The only universal things we have are law and science and we’ve come full circle. Your own argument is an argument against abortion.





As for the "life doesn't matter bullshit" it might or it might not, some planets seem to do just fine without life. But but whatever the numbers are that get aborted, I do know that that many less lives in this word wont really make much of a difference, as that many more lives will come along soon enough and replace that void that was apparently created by those aborted kids.


This type of logic makes everything unimportant, including this discussion. So, if this is your dodge then we’re done talking because there’s no point in talking. Now, if you'd actually like to have a real discussion with real purpose then I say we should do just that. Leave this crap out.
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/12/09 , edited 7/12/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Yeah, but at that point it's just a small mass of sells, with the same value as a rock or a leaf. Its not a capable human being until it can survive on its own without the mother, if it can't survive without the mother, then it's not a capable human being, and has no worth, except as a source of stem cells. Besides it's the woman's body, its her choice.


Ha ha ha what about people that need government support to live what does that make them?? As far as I am concerned kill off everyone that can't live on there own and the homeless as well to make a better world.


Well, if being incapable makes you worthless then does that mean that if I traveled to the rain forest I would suddenly cease being a person? I mean, I certainly would not be capable of much anything in the rain forest. I’d have to rely on others to keep me alive. I’d be a leech on my group. What about the tribal people? Are they not human because they must rely on the tribe or order to survive?

And, if it’s a matter of capability to survive then does that mean that American fetuses are worth more than Mexican fetuses? I mean, what if a child is born premature. In America we have machines and technology to keep them alive so they’re capable of surviving outside of the mother’s womb much earlier than they are in third world countries.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 7/12/09

Ahaz wrote:

I’m not saying it’s not their right to make money. I’m saying that relying on Planned Parenthood for information on abortion, when they’re a business that profits from abortions, is academically idiotic. It’s essentially like watching a sham-wow commercial and expecting that this rag really is sown together from Zeus’s golden pubic hairs.


Seems to me like that would be a rather expensive towel.

And yeap, it would be a stupid decision to get your info from then if they offer that service, it should be obvious that their going to make it seem like its a great safe idea, which fancy words and charismatic people and whatnot, that's how they sell, the information someone would get from then would essentially be an advertisement from planned parenthood for abortion.


People have a right to informed consent. We do not decide which information is important, but are required to release all related facts before engaging in an operation on any individual. Let’s do a hypothetical example.

A woman decides she wants to get some kind of cosmetic surgery. This particular operation is very safe, with a 98% success rate. The woman goes to get information from her doctor. The doctor thinks, “Well two percent is negligible,” and decides to tell the woman that there’s a 100% success rate so that she’ll pay for the procedure and he’ll make money. The woman goes into the operation not knowing about that 2% and happens to die.

To the doctor that 2% was irrelevant. To Planned Parenthood the scientific status of a fetus is also irrelevant. But they don’t have the right to make that decision. That’s up to the individuals attaining the operation.

Surely even you cannot object to this. Informed consent is an important right from which you will undoubtedly benefit from yourself.


Well yes that's true. And I'd assume most of that would be included with the paperwork and legal disclaimer you'd be signing before getting it done.


Very well, I’ll make that concession. Questions of morality and philosophy are void; therefore, we must look at the question from a strictly legal and scientific perspective. We have laws protecting human life. A zygote is a human life. Abortion should be illegal. It’s only when we bring in questions of morality that this comes into question.

Now, you may argue that you support abortion because it benefits you just as you may argue that you support slavery because it benefits you. In this case you’re an evil person, but ignoring that you’ve also countered yourself. What benefits one person may not benefit another person. We cannot consider morality because it varies between individuals. We cannot consider things that vary between individuals. What is beneficial and what is not beneficial varies between individuals; therefore, on your own argument rather or not abortion is beneficial is just as irrelevant as rather it is right or wrong.

What is useful also varies between individuals so that is irrelevant. Everything is irrelevant except that which is universa.l The only universal things we have are law and science and we’ve come full circle. Your own argument is an argument against abortion.


Abortion only benifits the person getting the abortion(although in some cases it benifits the father who now isn't stuck raising and paying for a kid he didn't want), But how can one person getting an abortion hurt someone else(not the fetus, as the fetus is generally in a lose-lose situation when these things happen.) who isn't getting an abortion ? So how is it someone else's problem when someone who is not that person gets an abortion ?



This type of logic makes everything unimportant, including this discussion. So, if this is your dodge then we’re done talking because there’s no point in talking. Now, if you'd actually like to have a real discussion with real purpose then I say we should do just that. Leave this crap out.


Well yeah, but I'm just saying if you abort lets say, 1000 fetuses in a year(the actual number is probably much much higher tho.), eventually 1000 new children will be born and will have taken the place of the 1000 aborted kids, so essentially it would be like those 1000 children were never aborted at all. It would just mean that instead of having 2000 people you still have 1000 people, the number which were aborted. So nothing is really lost, and nothing is really gained. You end up right back where you started.

And besides think about it realistically, even if we make abortion illegal, people will still be getting them, they'll be less in number sure, but they will still be happening. So making it illegal will have an effect, but not an absolute effect.
322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Somewhere you're not
Offline
Posted 7/12/09 , edited 7/12/09

Allhailodin
And yeap, it would be a stupid decision to get your info from then if they offer that service, it should be obvious that their going to make it seem like its a great safe idea, which fancy words and charismatic people and whatnot, that's how they sell, the information someone would get from then would essentially be an advertisement from planned parenthood for abortion.


Alright, now we agree. Good, that shows progress and an open mind.



Well yes that's true. And I'd assume most of that would be included with the paperwork and legal disclaimer you'd be signing before getting it done.


I’m afraid you’d be mistaken. Planned Parenthood uses the term, “potential human life,” which is not just misleading. It’s flat out incorrect. As we’ve already pointed out before, even in the earliest stages it is human life. I’m honestly surprised some pro-life lawyer hasn’t caught this and taken it straight to the Supreme Court. Maybe I’ll do this one day and make myself famous.

Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of Plan Parenthood in the organization’s history, actually argued that she shouldn’t have to inform people because they already know. This--as you and I have already agreed--is false. Most people do not consider a fetus to be a living human being because they’re ignorant. During an interview with Ms. Magazine Faye said: “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing.”

Obviously, however, she’s wrong. Just reading the transcript of Roe v. Wade you’ll see that Blackmun’s number one argument is that a fetus is not human until live birth. This is the cornerstone of every argument you’ll run into on the internet or in the streets. They honestly believe that a fetus is not human because they’ve been educated to accept this falsehood by organizations such as Planned Parenthood which spends millions of dollars to advertise their abortions so they can make hundreds of millions. In the 2000 elections they gave 460,000 US dollars to pro-choice candidates. They spent an additional 7-10 million attacking George Bush’s pro-life agenda. In two weeks alone they spent 1.5 million supporting pro-choice vice presidential candidate Al Gore.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat182.html

It’s the exact same thing that you see with global warming. Man made global warming is a fact, but because oil companies pay ‘scientists,’ to release ‘studies,’ suggesting otherwise people are ignorant. They truly believe that global warming is not caused in part by humans. Just, you know, ever other animal.




Abortion only benifits the person getting the abortion(although in some cases it benifits the father who now isn't stuck raising and paying for a kid he didn't want), But how can one person getting an abortion hurt someone else(not the fetus, as the fetus is generally in a lose-lose situation when these things happen.) who isn't getting an abortion ? So how is it someone else's problem when someone who is not that person gets an abortion


The fetus is harmed, obviously. You argue that the fetus is in a lose-lose situation, but I contradict. There are happy alternatives like adoption. The average waiting list to adopt a new born child is 2 years long. There is no shortage of loving parents wanting to adopt a new born child. The chances of a newborn baby put up for adoption being placed in the care of qualified loving parents is actually higher than that a child simply being raised by his biological parents.

So, if we outlaw abortion and instead encourage adoption the child would in fact win; moreover, having parents who cannot care for you does not necessarily mean you’ll take a loss. Look at Barrack Obama. A black child born to a poverty stricken single mother grew up to be the first African American president in history.

The father is also harmed because abortion trespasses on his right to reproduce and his right to protect his offspring. In addition, many fathers are actually required and made to pay for half of the abortion.



And besides think about it realistically, even if we make abortion illegal, people will still be getting them, they'll be less in number sure, but they will still be happening. So making it illegal will have an effect, but not an absolute effect.


The same can be said of anything from theft, to murder, to rape. All of these things are illegal but still happen. So, your statement is true but it is not an argument for anything.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.