Should the state prevent doctors from carrying out abortions?
Yes - In all cases
3.7% (9)
3.7% (9)
Yes - Except in extraordinary cases like rape
6.1% (15)
6.1% (15)
No
89.4% (219)
89.4% (219)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should the state ban abortion?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Deathmageddon:
Wow. 90% said no. That's really sad. That's a human child they're dismembering and THEN killing, people! Research the procedure, it's messed up. Being expelled from a birth canal does not suddenly make you alive or human. Think about it.

It's not a child, it's a fetus. That is the difference to the 90%. In the same way the capital punishment supporters create a different definition for it's victims so they can justify it to themselves. If you're against abortion and support capital punishment, war, or any other activity that results in death you're being a hypocrite pure and simple; what the pro-choice crowd has done for the fetus you have done for another human being.

PercyBoleyn:

F4LL3N:
In which case you argue murder of a 'living' human being is acceptable.

It is actually. We do it on a regular basis.

In your opinion. To anyone with decent morals murder is wrong, regardless of how often it happens.

F4LL3N:
I didn't say a pig doesn't have the right to live. I believe there's an organisation titled 'PETA' if you're that into animal rights.

Oh, so you support PETA's firebombings of animal research labs now?

You're the one going on about animal rights in a topic about human rights.

F4LL3N:
Me, personally, well I share very little physical and mental connection with a pig so I'm not exactly going to get upset when someone eats pork.

A lot of animal rights activists feel a physicl and mental connection with animals. Why are you angry of your views being shunned when you're doing the exact same thing for animal rights activists?

I'm not shunning animal rights activists. I stating I'm not an animal rights activist, even though I'm against the killing of any animal except the certain farm animals we eat.

F4LL3N:
You need to understand there's a difference between one species and another.

I'm not saying there isn't, I'm saying you haven't stated it yet and until you do I'll continue to operate under the assumption that there isn't any. If it's not OK to kill a human being it's not OK to kill an animal.

Most of my argument is based on the human species and how they differ from other species, what are you talking about?

F4LL3N:
That's beside the point. Humans don't have equal intelligence, therefore, if intelligence is a factor, you argue humans are not created equally. Earlier on this page I wrote a theory that tries to show this is also the case for sentience (or any factor that comes from the brain.)

Are sentience and intelligence the things that separate us from animals then?

DNA and body structure seperates us from other animals, as I've already stated. Sentience and intelligence isn't even exclusive to humans, and not all humans necessarily have either (which is actually a rather large point I'm trying to present.)

F4LL3N:

Hence why I argue it should be defined biologically.

Biologically speaking, if we take out intelligence and sentience, there's virtually no difference between you and a pig.

Other than you know... DNA and body structure.

F4LL3N:
Very few people bothered to counter my biological thoery because they know it's right.

Well I know I'm right, therefore I am! Oh logic, you so silly.

Well the only argument you seem to come up with is "pigs are almost human; almost, dot dot dot dot dot." Then we've got the other counter argument, "...that also defines a cancer or hair cell."

F4LL3N:
. You yourself have turned to "no one deserves the right to life" and "killing a pig is murder" rather than admit human life begins at conception.

Why at conception? Why not when the sperm is formed? Most of the genetic material that makes up a human being is in the sperm. Technically speaking, everytime a sperm is wasted an individual human being is wasted since that genetic makeup will never be achieved again. How does it feel to be a mass murderer F4LL3N?

Humans have 46 chromosomes (excluding any possible defects). The sperm carries only 23. The ovum carries the other 23. Until the two fuse, no development can physically occur, therefore a unique human life has yet to begin. Which is why, days ago, I defined a sperm as pre-human. An ovum would be technically pre-human too. Hence why in my defintion, I stated, "once the two gametes fuse, development begins, and a new unique human life begins (paraphrase)."

Shaoken:

Deathmageddon:
Wow. 90% said no. That's really sad. That's a human child they're dismembering and THEN killing, people! Research the procedure, it's messed up. Being expelled from a birth canal does not suddenly make you alive or human. Think about it.

It's not a child, it's a fetus. That is the difference to the 90%. In the same way the capital punishment supporters create a different definition for it's victims so they can justify it to themselves. If you're against abortion and support capital punishment, war, or any other activity that results in death you're being a hypocrite pure and simple; what the pro-choice crowd has done for the fetus you have done for another human being.

No. If someone commits a terrible crime, they are responsible, and in some cases, this may mean they are no longer deserving of life. Being in jail doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a terrible life. So if someone commits a truly terrible crime, putting them in jail limits their freedom, but doesn't necessarily eliminate their quality of life. Jail is meant to be both rehabilation and punishment. Jail isn't necessarily punishing and some people simply can not be trusted to re-enter society. Hence, the death penalty becomes a viable option.

I don't agree with war, despite the fact I'd be willing to join the army if I was either needed or if I decided I want to help innocent people in war torn countries. If I went to war overseas, I wouldn't throw away my responsibility to the people of said country. If the enemy are a menice to their own people, I would not hesitate to kill them. Killing innocent people means you no longer deserve life yourself, in my eyes.

F4LL3N:

Shaoken:

Deathmageddon:
Wow. 90% said no. That's really sad. That's a human child they're dismembering and THEN killing, people! Research the procedure, it's messed up. Being expelled from a birth canal does not suddenly make you alive or human. Think about it.

It's not a child, it's a fetus. That is the difference to the 90%. In the same way the capital punishment supporters create a different definition for it's victims so they can justify it to themselves. If you're against abortion and support capital punishment, war, or any other activity that results in death you're being a hypocrite pure and simple; what the pro-choice crowd has done for the fetus you have done for another human being.

No. If someone commits a terrible crime, they are responsible, and in some cases, this may mean they are no longer deserving of life. Being in jail doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a terrible life. So if someone commits a truly terrible crime, putting them in jail limits their freedom, but doesn't necessarily eliminate their quality of life. Jail is meant to be both rehabilation and punishment. Jail isn't necessarily punishing and some people simply can not be trusted to re-enter society. Hence, the death penalty becomes a viable option.

I don't agree with war, despite the fact I'd be willing to join the army if I was either needed or if I decided I want to help innocent people in war torn countries. If I went to war overseas, I wouldn't throw away my responsibility to the people of said country. If the enemy are a menice to their own people, I would not hesitate to kill them. Killing innocent people means you no longer deserve life yourself, in my eyes.

Proving my point exactly. You already went and defined these people as "guilty" so it's okay to kill them. You already split people into "innocent" and "guilty." Pro-Choice splits people between "alive" and "fetus." It's the exact same concept. You don't define your target as human, so it becomes alright to kill them.

Shaoken:
Proving my point exactly. You already went and defined these people as "guilty" so it's okay to kill them. You already split people into "innocent" and "guilty." Pro-Choice splits people between "alive" and "fetus." It's the exact same concept. You don't define your target as human, so it becomes alright to kill them.

I know. Each person compares their own reasoning and determines their belief is justified. But on a societal level, it's more important to compare other people's reasoning and determine whether or not it's justified. Especially when their reasoning is the accepted reasoning of said society. In either case, when said group determines the oppositions reasoning is not justified, they speak out in hopes of changing said reasoning and justification to better fit their own.

In the end, the ideally justifiable reasoning becomes majority rules. Right now, that says abortion is morally acceptable (to an extent.) In the future, this might not necessarily be the case. Which is why it's important to share your own reasoning. After all, if people didn't share their own reasoning, abortion would never have been made legal. Slavery would never have been made illegal. Gay's are still currently trying to reason with society to get equal rights. The list goes on...

I believe that abortion should be legal as long as the fetus hasn't developed nerves and a brain (which is about 9 weeks in if I remember right). Doing so afterwards is causing another living being unnecessary pain which I think is wrong. (unless, of course, there are extenuating circumstances) Same reason I don't eat meat, but have no qualms about killing insects or plants.

Then again, I'm not nearly arrogant enough to assume my belief on what constitutes a life worth preserving is the "correct" one.

Glass Joe the Champ:
I believe that abortion should be legal as long as the fetus hasn't developed nerves and a brain (which is about 9 weeks in if I remember right). Doing so afterwards is causing another living being unnecessary pain which I think is wrong. (unless, of course, there are extenuating circumstances) Same reason I don't eat meat, but have no qualms about killing insects or plants.

Then again, I'm not nearly arrogant enough to assume my belief on what constitutes a life worth preserving is the "correct" one.

From what I recall the medical community considers a fetus a baby at around week 20-24. By week 9 it still doesn't have the capacity to feel pain (or anything).

Shaoken:

Deathmageddon:
Wow. 90% said no. That's really sad. That's a human child they're dismembering and THEN killing, people! Research the procedure, it's messed up. Being expelled from a birth canal does not suddenly make you alive or human. Think about it.

It's not a child, it's a fetus. That is the difference to the 90%. In the same way the capital punishment supporters create a different definition for it's victims so they can justify it to themselves. If you're against abortion and support capital punishment, war, or any other activity that results in death you're being a hypocrite pure and simple; what the pro-choice crowd has done for the fetus you have done for another human being.

I'm pro choice, but now you are getting silly. Being in favor of one form of killing doesn't mean you are are hypocrite not to support all killings.

To keep it nice and simple, are you anti-murder? Then you are also anti-abortion and anti-self defense right? Silly isn't it? Circumstances matter.

Shaoken:

Glass Joe the Champ:
I believe that abortion should be legal as long as the fetus hasn't developed nerves and a brain (which is about 9 weeks in if I remember right). Doing so afterwards is causing another living being unnecessary pain which I think is wrong. (unless, of course, there are extenuating circumstances) Same reason I don't eat meat, but have no qualms about killing insects or plants.

Then again, I'm not nearly arrogant enough to assume my belief on what constitutes a life worth preserving is the "correct" one.

From what I recall the medical community considers a fetus a baby at around week 20-24. By week 9 it still doesn't have the capacity to feel pain (or anything).

The medical community doesn't define "baby".

At 20-24 weeks however the chance of the baby surviving outside of the womb (with significant medical assistance of course) is reasonably good. That's why the ethical cutoff in non critical situations for many abortion providers is in that range.

Kendarik:

Shaoken:

Deathmageddon:
Wow. 90% said no. That's really sad. That's a human child they're dismembering and THEN killing, people! Research the procedure, it's messed up. Being expelled from a birth canal does not suddenly make you alive or human. Think about it.

It's not a child, it's a fetus. That is the difference to the 90%. In the same way the capital punishment supporters create a different definition for it's victims so they can justify it to themselves. If you're against abortion and support capital punishment, war, or any other activity that results in death you're being a hypocrite pure and simple; what the pro-choice crowd has done for the fetus you have done for another human being.

I'm pro choice, but now you are getting silly. Being in favor of one form of killing doesn't mean you are are hypocrite not to support all killings.

To keep it nice and simple, are you anti-murder? Then you are also anti-abortion and anti-self defense right? Silly isn't it? Circumstances matter.

Missing the point; F4LL3N and similar pro-life posters decry that pro-choice supporters try to ease their concsiences by refusing to call fetuses as babies, whilst (most definiately in F4LL3N's case) they themselves have made semantic defences, always putting the people they don't mind killing into a different catagory. They try to pretend that abortion is incredibly simple, but are perfectly okay with making much more complicated scenarios about other forms of killing to keep their conscience's clear.

EDIT: I'll put it another way; this kind of pro-lifer allows himself to take circumstances into account for things like self-defence, war, capital punishment etc, but will absoulutely refuse to do the same for abortion and critises the pro-choice crowd for the same activity (to use F4LL3N as an example again, he opposes abortion even in the case of rape if my skim of his massive wall of text topic is correct). So you can say I'm against a double standard where one side decries the other for not defining a fetus as a person, but then has made exceptions for some people who, for whatever reason, they say don't deserve to be treated like a person.

F4LL3N:
In your opinion. To anyone with decent morals murder is wrong, regardless of how often it happens.

To anyone with half a brain it should be obvious that morality is nothing more than a societal construct. The only reason womenm and blacks have rights now is because the majority was willing to give it to them. If the majority decided against it tomorrow then no one could stop them. Decisions are made by the group with the most power, that's a fact.

F4LL3N:
You're the one going on about animal rights in a topic about human rights.

You're the one who stated that all life is equal by failing to prove the difference between a human and an animal.

F4LL3N:
I'm not shunning animal rights activists. I stating I'm not an animal rights activist, even though I'm against the killing of any animal except the certain farm animals we eat.

Oh, so it's OK to kill for convenience now? Then why are you against abortion?

F4LL3N:
Most of my argument is based on the human species and how they differ from other species, what are you talking about?

How DO humans differ from other species?

F4LL3N:
DNA and body structure seperates us from other animals, as I've already stated. Sentience and intelligence isn't even exclusive to humans, and not all humans necessarily have either (which is actually a rather large point I'm trying to present.)

How does body sructure and DNA not only separate us from animals but give us the right to live?

F4LL3N:
Other than you know... DNA and body structure.

We share 98% of our DNA with chimps and our body structure is quite similar to theirs. Should we give them the right to vote and be an active member of our society?

F4LL3N:
Humans have 46 chromosomes (excluding any possible defects). The sperm carries only 23. The ovum carries the other 23.

So basically, every single time a sperm dies a unique human being dies. After all, the unique genetic makeup exlusive to that sperm will never arise again. It's funny, you're more than willing to call women who get abortions murderers but are quick to justify your own sick practices. Maybe that says a lot about your character, maybe not. Who knows?

PercyBoleyn:

F4LL3N:
In your opinion. To anyone with decent morals murder is wrong, regardless of how often it happens.

To anyone with half a brain it should be obvious that morality is nothing more than a societal construct. The only reason womenm and blacks have rights now is because the majority was willing to give it to them. If the majority decided against it tomorrow then no one could stop them. Decisions are made by the group with the most power, that's a fact.

Yet again, I agree with what you're saying. However, it's regardless of the point.

F4LL3N:
You're the one going on about animal rights in a topic about human rights.

You're the one who stated that all life is equal by failing to prove the difference between a human and an animal.

You continue to take things out of context, even after I've made my argument clear.

F4LL3N:
I'm not shunning animal rights activists. I stating I'm not an animal rights activist, even though I'm against the killing of any animal except the certain farm animals we eat.

Oh, so it's OK to kill for convenience now? Then why are you against abortion?

Again, animal rights is a completely different topic. What don't you get about that.

F4LL3N:
Most of my argument is based on the human species and how they differ from other species, what are you talking about?

How DO humans differ from other species?

I've answered that.

F4LL3N:
DNA and body structure seperates us from other animals, as I've already stated. Sentience and intelligence isn't even exclusive to humans, and not all humans necessarily have either (which is actually a rather large point I'm trying to present.)

How does body sructure and DNA not only separate us from animals but give us the right to live?

I've answered that.

F4LL3N:
Other than you know... DNA and body structure.

We share 98% of our DNA with chimps and our body structure is quite similar to theirs. Should we give them the right to vote and be an active member of our society?

I wouldn't object.

F4LL3N:
Humans have 46 chromosomes (excluding any possible defects). The sperm carries only 23. The ovum carries the other 23.

So basically, every single time a sperm dies a unique human being dies. After all, the unique genetic makeup exlusive to that sperm will never arise again. It's funny, you're more than willing to call women who get abortions murderers but are quick to justify your own sick practices. Maybe that says a lot about your character, maybe not. Who knows?

I can see where you might associate my belief about sperm with your belief about a fetus. However, it's completely ignorant of my original argument. Even if you assume a sperm is a unique human being, pregnancy is more often than not avoidable.

The argument you're alluding to is very weak as you're suggesting every time someone masturbates or chooses to not have sex, or even chooses to have sex, millions of unique human beings die. It's extremely ignorant in comparison to my argument, as once the sperm and ovum unite, that zygote is going to be born--unless natural death occurs.

In your argument, unique human beings are dying--literally if you masturbate, have sex or don't have sex. Yes, it's natural death. But nothing can be done to stop this. You act as though abortion is unavoidable. When most of my argument alludes to the fact it's completely avoidable.

Once the gametes fuse, that single cell organism is human, and for intents and purposes, will be born.

P.s. Notice how there's no question marks in my post! That means I'm done discussing this with you, unless you can actually bring up a valid point.

F4LL3N:
Once the gametes fuse, that single cell organism is human, and for intents and purposes, will be born.

Oh really?

Wikipedia:
Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[14] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[10] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo.[15] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[16]

Completely avoidable! You know, if you're lucky. Flip a coin!

Seanchaidh:

F4LL3N:
Once the gametes fuse, that single cell organism is human, and for intents and purposes, will be born.

Oh really?

Wikipedia:
Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[14] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[10] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo.[15] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[16]

Completely avoidable! You know, if you're lucky. Flip a coin!

...for --all-- intents and purposes, will be born.

I didn't say 100% of fused gametes will be born. With that same logic; not all babies live until adulthood, therefore it is an option whether or not you want to end that possibility (not all zygotes live until birth, therefore it is an option whether or not you want to end that possibility.)

It's unjust.

F4LL3N:

Seanchaidh:

F4LL3N:
Once the gametes fuse, that single cell organism is human, and for intents and purposes, will be born.

Oh really?

Wikipedia:
Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[14] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[10] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo.[15] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[16]

Completely avoidable! You know, if you're lucky. Flip a coin!

...for --all-- intents and purposes, will be born.

So for all intents and purposes other than what actually happens?

I didn't say 100% of fused gametes will be born. With that same logic; not all babies live until adulthood, therefore it is an option whether or not you want to end that possibility (not all zygotes live until birth, therefore it is an option whether or not you want to end that possibility.)

It's unjust.

99.99999~% of possible people won't be born because the right two people won't even meet, let alone fuck. Yes, it's unfair in some bullshit hypothetical sense. But unjust it is not. A violation of rights it is not. What is unjust is demanding of women that they allow themselves to be used as incubators against their will for some number of months just to make sure a pre-conscious bit of biomatter can later decide that it wants to be alive. That one might have a preference in the future is irrelevant. If it has no preferences, and has had no preferences ever, it can't possibly be a greater concern than the liberty of a woman.

F4LL3N:
You continue to take things out of context, even after I've made my argument clear.

Have you though? Cause your supposed "proof" can be basically summed up to "we deserve to live because we're human" which frankly makes no sense at all. If you can't differentiate animals from humans then any argument you make in favor of abotion, like how all life is sacred and has the right to live, will also be applied to animals.

F4LL3N:
Again, animal rights is a completely different topic. What don't you get about that.

It's not a different issuem, especially since you failed to acknowledge the very obvious boundaries between species. Either humans are different from animals, be it because of our intelligence, or any argument you make about the "right to live" and all that other bullshit applies to them as well.

F4LL3N:
I've answered that.

No you haven't. Biological differences count for jack shit. "Being human" no more givs you the right to live than being an insect.

F4LL3N:
I wouldn't object.

It's funny seeing what the convoluted nature of your beliefs makes you accept.

F4LL3N:
I can see where you might associate my belief about sperm with your belief about a fetus. However, it's completely ignorant of my original argument. Even if you assume a sperm is a unique human being, pregnancy is more often than not avoidable.

It's always avoidable, that's what abortion is for. What's your point? That if we can avoid pregnancy then it's OK? Well shit...

F4LL3N:
The argument you're alluding to is very weak as you're suggesting every time someone masturbates or chooses to not have sex, or even chooses to have sex, millions of unique human beings die. It's extremely ignorant in comparison to my argument, as once the sperm and ovum unite, that zygote is going to be born--unless natural death occurs.

That's your argument, not mine. If you believe that abortion and therefore extirpation of the zygote is murder then so is masturbation. Each sperm has the required genetic material to create a unique human being. When that sperm dies, that unique human being will never be born, ever. If you actually stood behind your BS you'd actually realize just how idiotic that sounds but of course, your best bet right now is to avoid the question all together since the alternative is to admit you were wrong.

F4LL3N:
In your argument, unique human beings are dying--literally if you masturbate, have sex or don't have sex. Yes, it's natural death. But nothing can be done to stop this. You act as though abortion is unavoidable. When most of my argument alludes to the fact it's completely avoidable.

What are you talking about? Death by masturbation is totally avoidable. All we have to do is create birthing centers and force males and females to procreate every two weeks or so. That way you can avoid committing mass genocide against the human races. Alternatively we could also force anyone who masturbates to do so at specially designated sperm clinics where the sperm can be preserved. Of course we'd have to ban condoms and contraception and do away with those pesky little things called rights but that's a small price to pay for upholding the right of every living being to live.

Then again, we'd also have to stop eating meat since that would infringe an animal's right to live since in your wold there is no quantifiable difference between humans and animals. We'd also have to control virtually every single animal on earth to assure that their right to live isn't infringed. Still, I believe it's worth it. Do you?

F4LL3N:
Notice how there's no question marks in my post! That means I'm done discussing this with you, unless you can actually bring up a valid point.

It's weird how the internet has changed our society as a whole. Instead of standing up for your beliefs you choose to run away. In real life you'd be ridiculed and shunned by any community for doing so.

F4LL3N:

Seanchaidh:

F4LL3N:
Once the gametes fuse, that single cell organism is human, and for intents and purposes, will be born.

Oh really?

Wikipedia:
Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[14] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[10] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners have the ability to detect the presence of an embryo.[15] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[16]

Completely avoidable! You know, if you're lucky. Flip a coin!

...for --all-- intents and purposes, will be born.

I didn't say 100% of fused gametes will be born. With that same logic; not all babies live until adulthood, therefore it is an option whether or not you want to end that possibility (not all zygotes live until birth, therefore it is an option whether or not you want to end that possibility.)

It's unjust.

Wait, hold on now.

50-70% of fetuses fail to make it past the first trimester? The odds at best are the same as flipping a coin? And that's the arguement that you want to use to ban first-trimester abortions; that between half and a quarter will become viable?

ANd you wonder why people don't consider first-trimester fetuses babies when most of them die in that period? With the case of babies a fuckton more than 50% of babies in Western Society where this abortion debate is focused on and all of the relevant facts are drawn from so bringing up another region is irrelevant to the topic at hand survive to see adulthood, and in all cases it is medically possible to keep them alive at that stage.

So it's apples and oranges here, with this latest tibit of information making it all the more apparant; despite your claims there is a world of difference between a fetus and a child, just like there's a world of difference between an egg and a chick.

Oh man this is one hell of an argument! I love it! (grabs the popcorn)

Do what me and my ex did, Condoms+PregnancyPill=0% pregnancy chance. Women who are promiscuous should always use the pill and have the guy use condoms. It's literally fail proof. Even If the condom breaks you are still 100% protected against STD's and the pill will prevent the pregnancy.

TizzytheTormentor:
Oh man this is one hell of an argument! I love it! (grabs the popcorn)

Do what me and my ex did, Condoms+PregnancyPill=0% pregnancy chance. Women who are promiscuous should always use the pill and have the guy use condoms. It's literally fail proof. Even If the condom breaks you are still 100% protected against STD's and the pill will prevent the pregnancy.

Okay, so now we're talking about someone who's sensitive to those hormones being released artifically at such levels, and has developed a potentially fatal pulmonary embolism because of it.
Yet the doctors saved her life, and she lived. But she can never ever use the pill anymore.

Furthermore her parents are religious idiots who'd kill her if they ever found her possesing condoms.


Then what?

F4LL3N:
Jail isn't necessarily punishing

I knew from reading your earlier posts on this subject that you were naive and a hypocrite, but this little bit of sentence takes that naive bit, and takes it to a whole new level.

Yet you presume to judge other people and even call them murderers despite of the circumstances of their lives often being terrible?

TizzytheTormentor:
Even If the condom breaks you are still 100% protected against STD's and the pill will prevent the pregnancy.

Ah, no. If the condom breaks you are not protected against STDs lol.

banning abortion doesn't work.

lemme tell you a story...

its the second world war and literally hundreds of thousands of "yanks" (and others) are stationed in Britain in the run up to the invasion of mainland Europe.

they are "fit", have sexy accents, have more money to spend than just about anyone and are bussed into "socials" with halls full of indigenous female war workers for "entertainment" and despite all the claims that the 60s were the promiscuous decade of the last century the truth is during the war years people were at it like rabbits because "fleeting relationships" are kinda a natural reaction when you could die during the next air raid or posting and any "goodbye" could be the last time you see someone and enjoyment of life affirming sex is one of the few things that can help you cope with that kind of omnipresent life threatening stress.

and yet socially conservative post war Britain was strangely not filled with hundreds of thousands of "difficult to explain" half American (or French or Polish or whatever) babies...

(the "baby boom" is later when the indigenous men & women were demobbed. indeed most people place the start of the "baby boom" as 1946.)

the reason why ("back street" or self-induced abortions...hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them...) is part of Britains "secret" social history and big part of the reason why the country has a very different attitude to abortion than the US.

women have been aborting "unwanted" babys probably as long as they've been having them and the only real question is would you rather that was done by someone who's likely to ensure at least one person survives or do you want to go bad to the days when it would be done in a cold bath with a bag of salt and some knitting needles...

PercyBoleyn:

F4LL3N:
You continue to take things out of context, even after I've made my argument clear.

Have you though? Cause your supposed "proof" can be basically summed up to "we deserve to live because we're human" which frankly makes no sense at all. If you can't differentiate animals from humans then any argument you make in favor of abotion, like how all life is sacred and has the right to live, will also be applied to animals.

"We deserve to live because we're human" sums it up pretty good, actually. It's not necessarily the only reason, and it's not necessarily your reason, but it is a fairly solid reason nonetheless. If you remove DNA, etc., from the picture, the brain/mind does play a role in what we're talking about. But you people don't seem to have a full understanding of that concept. The brain doesn't just control sentience and intelligence. Emotion and memory connects human's with one another far more than the latter definitions, and even that is a dumbed down version of what you could subjectively define a human/person with.

Lacking any of this, either because you've never had it, it's suppressed, or you've lossed it competely does not equal non-human or non-person. When somebody with all of these mental faculties (I didn't name them all) declares someone without these mental faculties as non-human or non-person, it says a lot more about their humanity and personhood than it does those who do not possess such. When someone declares such and such is needed for humanity and personhood, you're removing yourself from humanity and personhood, not the person without it.

You're declaring superiority through subjective meanings that you seem to think are necessary, which at best is unjustifable and unreasonable, and at worse shows a premature/misguided understanding on humanity, life, knowledge, emotion, and society, just to name a few.

The only justification I've heard for this is "they aren't capable of caring."

There's absolutely no basis to that claim. Does saying that honestly make you any more human? Does it make you feel better about your own life and existence? That statement means nothing when it's coming from a mind that's capable of subjective thought. There's no fundamental difference between saying that and saying "they can't afford a TV therefore they're not human." It's one mind, or a collection of minds claiming something with absolutely nothing to back it up. There's literally no way to back it up without admitting it's completely subjective and completely meaningless.

Religious people claim the soul is created at conception; what's the difference between your claim and theirs? Nothing. On a scientific level, the soul would best be defined as the mind (and the mind is 'you'.) This is the exact same claim you make (not necessarily 'you'.) The only difference is, they acknowledge that pre-sentience and pre-intelligence is just as important as sentience and intelligence itself. A week ago I claimed, "the carrier of consciousness is just as important as the consciousness itself." Which is 100% true, and this applies to any other mental faculty.

"They aren't capable of caring" is a dumbed down way of saying, "I'm great and powerful, deserving of life and liberty... you aren't, ner ner!!"

There's only two justifiable points in which we can decide humanity and personhood. At the point of conception when it begins as a uniquely developing organism, or at birth where it can share a personal connection with the world and humanity as a whole. Anywhere in between has nothing sound backing it up. Viability means nothing if the possibility of death exists. A functioning brain means nothing (discussed above.)

F4LL3N:
Again, animal rights is a completely different topic. What don't you get about that.

It's not a different issuem, especially since you failed to acknowledge the very obvious boundaries between species. Either humans are different from animals, be it because of our intelligence, or any argument you make about the "right to live" and all that other bullshit applies to them as well.

Their right to live would only exist between those of the same species (as an idea), or those of other species who share some form of connection with said species (as an idea.)

A "right to live" is an idea that only exists in the mind of the individual determining such. That idea does not exist in your mind regarding the pre-born--I understand this--but I'm calling it out as bullshit (from my perspective.)

F4LL3N:
I wouldn't object.

It's funny seeing what the convoluted nature of your beliefs makes you accept.

This article might suggest what makes us human is the ability to share our knowledge with one another. If this is true, that would suggest humanity is defined by the ability to share knowledge with one another. Abortion is preventing a human from being born, which would ultimately mean that abortion is preventing humanity from improving. If the unborn aren't human, then this mustn't be true--abortion mustn't prevent humanity from improving.

On a grand scale this might not seem evident, but on an individual scale, i.e., anywhere from one person up, this becomes quite evident. Even this small little discussion we're having is having some form of impact on humanity. Of course, this is only as important as the importance you put on it.

You could look at this from a different point of view and say abortion improves humanity because it stops an unwanted human from coming into existence. But who the fuck are we to decide such a thing. There's nothing backing that statement up. There's nothing backing up the contrary, but again, who the fuck are we to decide. It's best to let nature play it's course.

You could say, "who the fuck are we to stop cancer doing it's job." Well this whole topic is about saving life and preventing death. You could say, "abortion is about improving life" but ultimately it still results in an unnatural death for unjust reasons.

F4LL3N:
The argument you're alluding to is very weak as you're suggesting every time someone masturbates or chooses to not have sex, or even chooses to have sex, millions of unique human beings die. It's extremely ignorant in comparison to my argument, as once the sperm and ovum unite, that zygote is going to be born--unless natural death occurs.

That's your argument, not mine. If you believe that abortion and therefore extirpation of the zygote is murder then so is masturbation. Each sperm has the required genetic material to create a unique human being. When that sperm dies, that unique human being will never be born, ever. If you actually stood behind your BS you'd actually realize just how idiotic that sounds but of course, your best bet right now is to avoid the question all together since the alternative is to admit you were wrong.

I understand the comparison, but there's not a lot behind it. Each sperm doesn't have the required genetic material to create a unique human being. It only has half. When we evolve to the point where each sperm can develop into a human being on it's own, come back and we'll finish this off (I believe this is called asexual reproduction, a path that humans will likely never enter.) So, see you in one hundred trillion billion years.

F4LL3N:
Notice how there's no question marks in my post! That means I'm done discussing this with you, unless you can actually bring up a valid point.

It's weird how the internet has changed our society as a whole. Instead of standing up for your beliefs you choose to run away. In real life you'd be ridiculed and shunned by any community for doing so.

I wasn't running away. You were just going on with shit that I couldn't comprehend, because it made no sense to me why you were asking such things. This post is an attempt to humour your questions, although it's still fairly simplistic and not at all the full story. Come back to me in 50 years when I've got a better understanding of the world and I'll probably have better answers to your questions.

Deathmageddon:
Wow. 90% said no. That's really sad. That's a human child they're dismembering and THEN killing, people! Research the procedure, it's messed up. Being expelled from a birth canal does not suddenly make you alive or human. Think about it.

Being a piece of human matter doesn't make something worth protecting, think about it. Taken for what it is, it's nothing that possesses the capacity for attributes I find relevant to valuing human beings in the timeframe abortion is legal.

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
Jail isn't necessarily punishing

I knew from reading your earlier posts on this subject that you were naive and a hypocrite, but this little bit of sentence takes that naive bit, and takes it to a whole new level.

Yet you presume to judge other people and even call them murderers despite of the circumstances of their lives often being terrible?

What? If you develop healthy relationships in prison, there's not a lot of difference from the outside world. Some people purposely go back to jail because they do not like the outside world.

Who's naive?

F4LL3N:

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
Jail isn't necessarily punishing

I knew from reading your earlier posts on this subject that you were naive and a hypocrite, but this little bit of sentence takes that naive bit, and takes it to a whole new level.

Yet you presume to judge other people and even call them murderers despite of the circumstances of their lives often being terrible?

What? If you develop healthy relationships in prison, there's not a lot of difference from the outside world. Some people purposely go back to jail because they do not like the outside world.

Who's naive?

This can indeed be true.

I've met several people who commit crimes after their jail term is up, purely because they like jail and want to go back. They've said to me, and I quote, "I like it cause all my friends are there."

Although we have to remember that's not the case for every criminal.

I'd be surprised if that attitude wasn't the exception to the rule.

Yeah, that thing was way to whiny and ranty. Maybe focus on the subject at hand instead of trying to imitate a pseudo intelectual?

PercyBolen, while I agree with your position in the debate, arguing against the right to life is a good way to show that you're not reasonable. Just sayin'.

F4LL3N:
"We deserve to live because we're human" sums it up pretty good, actually. It's not necessarily the only reason, and it's not necessarily your reason, but it is a fairly solid reason nonetheless.

I'm slightly curious, F4LL3N... Say Vulcans would land on earth tomorrow. Would they have a right to life? Not really that related to the discussion, as any point I would try to make with it would almost certainly attempt to legitimize infanticide, I'm just wondering.

Deathmageddon:
Wow. 90% said no. That's really sad. That's a human child they're dismembering and THEN killing, people! Research the procedure, it's messed up. Being expelled from a birth canal does not suddenly make you alive or human. Think about it.

Way to completely miss the nuanced moral arguments going on here. Here's a little tip: when a debate on a forum is, within a few weeks, up to about 30 pages (over the threads combined), there's probably more to it than "One side wants to murder babies". For example, you're ignoring the moral dilemma involved with the rights of the mother over her own body, and the very real issues involved in defining a fetus as a human person worthy of the right to life, including things like:
- It lacking real stimulus-response until very far into the pregnancy
- Distinction between it being a parasitism in the mother, a part of the mother's body, or an independent human person
- The idea of personhood

Seriously, a great way to make yourself look like an ignorant fool is to jump into a debate like this, an ongoing philosophical and moral debate, and claim that everyone who disagrees with you is a baby-killer. It's like a theist jumping into an "is there a god debate", throwing out the Kalam Cosmological argument (or the 7 ways of Aquinas, or the design inference argument, or any other similarly debunked and flawed argument), and claiming that anyone who disagrees is going to hell, the "sad, blind fools".

PercyBoleyn:
Yeah, that thing was way to whiny and ranty. Maybe focus on the subject at hand instead of trying to imitate a pseudo intelectual?

Okay. I replied, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would actually put some effort into it. Clearly I was wrong. Conversation over... No, I'm not running away. You're simply not adding anything at all to the discussion and I really don't think you ever did.

Stagnant:
PercyBolen, while I agree with your position in the debate, arguing against the right to life is a good way to show that you're not reasonable. Just sayin'.

F4LL3N:
"We deserve to live because we're human" sums it up pretty good, actually. It's not necessarily the only reason, and it's not necessarily your reason, but it is a fairly solid reason nonetheless.

I'm slightly curious, F4LL3N... Say Vulcans would land on earth tomorrow. Would they have a right to life? Not really that related to the discussion, as any point I would try to make with it would almost certainly attempt to legitimize infanticide, I'm just wondering.

At first, I thought you were talking about a bird. But I assume you're talking about an alien, possibly off Star Trek. I know nothing about them.

If they were known to be peaceful and civilized, I would think it would be wrong to kill them.

F4LL3N:
Okay. I replied, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would actually put some effort into it. Clearly I was wrong. Conversation over... No, I'm not running away. You're simply not adding anything at all to the discussion and I really don't think you ever did.

All I did was ask you a few simple questions. If you can't even answer those then how can you claim your position is not only moral but logical?

F4LL3N:
If they were known to be peaceful and civilized, I would think it would be wrong to kill them.

That's very nice of you. Would you maintain this stance if we were found to support abortions?

The way I see it, the less people walking around the better. I would like to see suicide legalised that way people who are suffering from a degenerative disease have somewhere to go. The process should obviously be well thought out and quite complex but it should definitely be done

PercyBoleyn:

F4LL3N:
Okay. I replied, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would actually put some effort into it. Clearly I was wrong. Conversation over... No, I'm not running away. You're simply not adding anything at all to the discussion and I really don't think you ever did.

All I did was ask you a few simple questions. If you can't even answer those then how can you claim your position is not only moral but logical?

No. You're bringing random shit into the discussion, which I've humoured with responses. You continue to ask the same questions despite me answering them from multiple perspectives, and you make statements knowing I've already addressed them.

"This topic is about saving life and preventing death"

"DEER DEEEH! Dunt yews antibotied deeen! Duh dddd!"

I'm done with you. I gave you a chance to redeem yourself and give me a decent response. You expect me to answer questions when you can't even put effort into responding. You only want to hear that you're right and I'm wrong.

Istvan:

F4LL3N:
If they were known to be peaceful and civilized, I would think it would be wrong to kill them.

That's very nice of you. Would you maintain this stance if we were found to support abortions?

Well, the very first sentence on their Wikipedia page states, "...are noted for their attempt to live by reason and logic with no interference from emotion."

I would assume they would be against elective abortion, for any number of reasons. Two being:
1. You get pregnant, you take responsibility for your actions.
2. It either ends in the death of an actual Vulcan or the death of a potential Vulcan. But being reasonable and logical, they would realize there's not really a difference between the two.

Of course, they could think, "If the mother doesn't want it, there's not much point letting it live." But then they'd realize the above two points and simply put it up for adoption.

Otherwise, I would maintain the stance. I don't want to kill people because they support abortion, why would I want to kill a peaceful and civilized alien species.

A ban would be bad. Abortion should be legal. I think it is perfectly acceptable up until around the 20 week mark, after that it gets a bit too morally grey for me to be fully behind. And before anybody gets back to the point of "why pick such an random spot?", it's the brain development.

F4LL3N:

Istvan:

F4LL3N:
If they were known to be peaceful and civilized, I would think it would be wrong to kill them.

That's very nice of you. Would you maintain this stance if we were found to support abortions?

Well, the very first sentence on their Wikipedia page states, "...are noted for their attempt to live by reason and logic with no interference from emotion."

I would assume they would be against elective abortion, for any number of reasons. Two being:
1. You get pregnant, you take responsibility for your actions.
2. It either ends in the death of an actual Vulcan or the death of a potential Vulcan. But being reasonable and logical, they would realize there's not really a difference between the two.

Of course, they could think, "If the mother doesn't want it, there's not much point letting it live." But then they'd realize the above two points and simply put it up for adoption.

Actually being completely logical would make the distinction even greater. They wouldn't have any emotional investment in the "potential Vulcans" as you put it, so they'd be okay with abortion.

F4LL3N:
No. You're bringing random shit into the discussion, which I've humoured with responses. You continue to ask the same questions despite me answering them from multiple perspectives, and you make statements knowing I've already addressed them.

They were questions that made a lot of sense considering your belief system and instead of answering them you went on a rant about bullshit that had absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you.

F4LL3N:
I'm done with you. I gave you a chance to redeem yourself and give me a decent response. You expect me to answer questions when you can't even put effort into responding. You only want to hear that you're right and I'm wrong.

Of course you're "done with me". That's the usual response people give when they can't handle their beliefs being challenged by simple logic.

F4LL3N:
2. It either ends in the death of an actual Vulcan or the death of a potential Vulcan. But being reasonable and logical, they would realize there's not really a difference between the two.

Uhm, yes there is, because all the bullcrap about blastocytes and fetuses being exactly the same as a grown person is religious nonsense.

You base yourself on completely irrational religious assumptions, and totally ignore people's rights. Wait, they have no rights because they are women. But wait, life is sacred including theirs and people must never be killed. Except when they sin against the faith, in which case they must be put to death. Oh, and of course people go to prison for fun because they feel like it, so killing people is quite okay.

Having the nerve to speak of logic after arguing like that is quite something.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked