Not G. Ivingname:
And they plan on enforcing this... HOW? You don't really need anything that the state can track like with drugs (such as devices to use the drug, the drug itself, etc). Only a hand and an active imagination.

Every single person in the state above the age 13 is going to suddenly be a felon (disregarding those who have lost their private bits before using it). This has to be the DUMBEST law proposed outside of "mandatory throwing of all babies off of cliffs."

The answer is to remove people's hands. Only then can they live free of the temptation to shame themselves before God.

Wedding rings would then need to go on the toe of course.

ReservoirAngel:

Polarity27:
It's fucking AMAZING how many outraged men there are in this thread. I wonder how many of them were equally outraged at the *actual* bill, y'know, the one that affects *women*, and isn't political trolling?

For the record, I'm pretty much constantly stunned and appalled at the Republicans efforts to screw around with women's reproductive rights. Which is odd since I never usually concern myself with women's reproductive areas, but there we are.

I'm just going to throw this out there, but you are one of the most hilarious Escapists I see. Keep up the good work you glorious man *whispered*Your secret is safe with me

OT: Good job democrats. Reverse trolling FTW, just be careful, they might actually pass such bills anyway.

F4LL3N:

That's a poor argument. In the same places abortion is legal, it's illegal for two gays to marry, you know, two consenting adults. Incest between two consenting adults is illegal, you know, consenting adults. There's literally hundreds of laws in every country that have absolutely no basis behind them. Law means very little, since the law is written by a small number of people, and people aren't perfect. Legality should be at the bottom of your argument list, since it is essentially flawed. None of my beliefs are based of off religious, so bad assumption. Ask anyone who's seen me debate abortion; I've never used the soul as an argument.

My science isn't faulty, yours is. I bet you can't even acknowledge human life begins at conception, you know, the point in which a sperm and ovum unite and development of the human begins.

It's an excellent arguement, the developed civilised world = abortion legal. Religious extremist run world = abortion illegal, it's that simple. Yes gay marriage is still illegal in many of these places, but were getting there, by 2015 we'll have it in the UK, we already have civil partnerships. Incest is a whole different matter, a friend of mine is the result of a father and daughter and he doesn't have any normal fully functional fingers. The fact that you compare homosexuality to incest says you aren't the most enlightened on this either.

Don't give me that laws made by the minority BS, because YOU are pushing for a law supported by the minority even in America. You've got to accept your way of thinking is completely outdated, a relic of the pre-enlightment age in Europe gasping for it's last breath.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/16/321396/poll-majority-of-americans-are-pro-choice-despite-gop-push-to-ban-abortion/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/09/america-pro-choice-majority

Especially here in the UK if you did a poll you'd find at least 80% support a woman's right to choose, I assure you, it's not a minority passed law here and everywhere else.

I never said you were religious, I said the basis for opposing choice is in religion who then pose it as science in a vain effort to give legitimacy and wider appeal to their outdated beliefs. If you're anti-choice and not so for religious religious reasons you've clearlt been brainwashed or are in dyer need of taking a biology class again. I can't acknowledge life begins at conception, because it doesn't. I will say it's difficult to say exactly when it begins, though most scientist will say it's late in development or even birth, usually at a point where the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb. But neither me nor you get to have an opinion on the matter, we must follow the science and evidence. Only you may claim to you, but you can't see that those who claim life begins at conception are either highly religious or funded by those who are.

Biosophilogical:

ReservoirAngel:

Polarity27:
It's fucking AMAZING how many outraged men there are in this thread. I wonder how many of them were equally outraged at the *actual* bill, y'know, the one that affects *women*, and isn't political trolling?

For the record, I'm pretty much constantly stunned and appalled at the Republicans efforts to screw around with women's reproductive rights. Which is odd since I never usually concern myself with women's reproductive areas, but there we are.

I'm just going to throw this out there, but you are one of the most hilarious Escapists I see. Keep up the good work you glorious man *whispered*Your secret is safe with me

Well, I do try.

...god how hard I try...

Ahahahahaha, oh, this is amazing.

I laughed a good while. That's really rich it is. I wish I was politically influential as to do something as off the wall as this.

Stagnant:
Then you have not been paying attention. We've given you many quite eloquent arguments, most of which move abortion from "Objectively immoral" to "possibly negative", and you just seem to be unwilling to actually listen. The rights of the woman, the utter lack of sentience, the definition of the word "person"... But then again, you're pretty much the prime example of what RA was talking about when he said "they're not listening". You're so entrenched within your personal beliefs that it doesn't matter what arguments we offer and what proof we bring forward. It's obviously no good.

OT: At least the Republicans are serious about their politics. This isn't the first time I've seen Democrats turn politics into a childish game.

Debt ceiling debate. Fuck you. And even then, you know what? I'd rather see a childish game than a serious piece of legislation that is disgustingly inhumane.

And if you wanna get into Climate Change, I made a thread for that and I'd be happy to have some more content in it. ^_^

Who's "we", because most people here wouldn't have a clue what they're talking about. I'll give you a bit of credit, since at least you're somewhat sensible, despite our different beliefs. Judging from several replies from you, you actually have some independent thought.

Although I will object. I have countered and considered most of the arguments. Sure, women have a right to their body. Sure, there is such a thing as unsafe abortion. But that means nothing if you consider abortion means murder of innocent children. Which I think, objectively, is fair enough. To someone who considers the unborn to be human, it is murder. And it means nothing compared to the millions, or even thousands if you only count past a certain point (deaths from illegal abortions.)

Lack of sentience? Well, as it should be clear by now, that's a subjective definition of the concept of human or person. Even if we disclude that, sentience itself is subjective and doesn't happen over night. A newborn or a 20 year old, born healthy, may not contain full sentience. You could say, merely having some form of sentience is enough, but that's not at all scientific.

Again, the definition of "person" is entirely subjective and not at all scientific. To claim otherwise is even more ignorant than what you see me as.

I am listening. Just because my conclusion is different than what you concluded to, doesn't mean it's wrong. Btw, the original bill is not inhumane. At least not objectively.

One more thing, although it means nothing, since your reply will be completely ignorant of the facts--or at least my facts. What's the differences between 'illegal' abortion and 'legal' abortion. Sure, there's the obvious. But if it is the woman's choice; logically, isn't it the woman's choice? For instance, illegal abortions that happen in the US, perhaps because the mother is ashamed or because she doesn't have 'convient' access? Ultimately, by your standards, it's the woman's choice.

Relevantly, what is your opinion on suicide? Or consentual incest between adults? Do you believe it's there choice and should be legal?

EDIT: I would also like your opinion on women getting abortions from pressure of family or a partner. Which, from memory, is statistically happening quite a lot. Obviously, you believe it's the woman's choice, so it shouldn't happen. But it does. Due to legality of it. What is your opinion?

McMullen:

F4LL3N:

pyrate:
SNIP

That's an opinion. There's no scientific evidence against it unless you put arbitrary meaning to the word 'person.'

Actually, there's lots of scientific evidence to show that there's no brain or nervous system in a zygote. No thinking or feeling is going on in that cell, my friend. Not a person. You can say it's a person, but then it is YOU who are being arbitrary, and being arbitrary kinda means you have no argument, doesn't it? If you want to say it's a person, you are the one who needs evidence. That's the way positive claims and evidence work.

This is why I can't take any of you seriously. I said nothing about a brain or nervous system in a zygote. Anything that proves you wrong, you either completely ignore, as if I didn't say it, or you make up crap. I didn't put any arbitrary meaning in the word zygote or person.

Read carefully. Human life begins at conception. This is scientifically undeniable. It's the beginning of a new organism, of Homo sapien genus (species, to be exact), it's the first point of development. It's scientifically undeniable. It's the beginning of human life. Despite you denying it, it's UNDENIABLE. This is worse than claiming God is real. At least that is a belief, an idea. This has undeniable proof. How can someone deny undeniable proof? It's beyond logical reality. It's beyond stupidity, quite frankly.

The following is an opinion, or a belief; something I've clearly claimed. All biological humans should be regarded as persons. This is as far as the word "equality" gets, in any such context. The opposite is literally equilavent to what Hitler did. Deny huamns personhood.

F4LL3N:

It's reasonable to be skeptic about climate change, and even more so putting billions of dollars into preventing it. Seeing how Earth is 4.5 billion years old and we're basing everything off of a couple hundred years at most (although realistically probably only 30-40 years of data collection.)

SNIP this part

I'm no expert on climate change. Luckily, I didn't claim climate change is wrong. I simply stated, it's "reasonable to be skeptic." Interpret that as wrong as your will and/or subconscious desires.

DrVornoff:

F4LL3N:
I've actually got a pretty decent understanding of my own beliefs, and they make complete sense to me.

That makes one of us. I somehow doubt continuing this for another 3 pages or so is going to change that, though. I'm going to go get stoned and listen to my Talking Heads albums.

Well, it's obvious that you don't understand your own beliefs, nor do they make any sense to you, seeing how they're fundamentally wrong and you can't even back them up. At least you know your beliefs are wrong. Unlike most others on this forum (political section), that can't even understand simple science, yet like to base everything off of it.

I say "political section", but it ultimately spreads to the entire forum. Like how everyone claims JRPGs and Final Fantasy are stagnant, ignoring any real facts of the matter. This also (especially) includes the second Star Wars trilogy, that is "obviously" the worse thing to ever happen EVER.

p.s. You're clearly quite laid back, meaning I think you're fairly cool. I come off as quite aggressive while debating, but I think it's only because I have such differing ideas than most people here. Also, I can be quite arrogant when it comes to dealing with arrogance. I know for a fact I'm not making any friends talking in such a tone, but quite frankly, I don't care. Because you don't make friends with salad. I'd love to start a congo line, but I feel now is an inappropriate time.

Skeleon:

F4LL3N:
If you were alive 70 years ago in Germany, you'd probably define personhood as "being white with blonde hair and blue eyes", or 200 years ago in the US you might define personhood as "not being black."

I was going to respond to your post but then I saw you compare my views to those of a fucking Nazi, so kindly get lost.
I won't bother with you again.

So basically, you've got no argument. It's honestly not surprising to me.

Btw, I meant no offense. Even more "btw", I didn't compare your views to the Nazi's. I simply stated facts. People are inclined to follow social norms. You could say the same about my beliefs, but I've literally only been in a church once (for my grandmothers funeral) and I've literally never associated myself with a religious person or religious beliefs or anti-abortion beliefs of others. This is all free-will, baby!

Do you have a counter or not?

Rage19:

F4LL3N:

That's a poor argument. In the same places abortion is legal, it's illegal for two gays to marry, you know, two consenting adults. Incest between two consenting adults is illegal, you know, consenting adults. There's literally hundreds of laws in every country that have absolutely no basis behind them. Law means very little, since the law is written by a small number of people, and people aren't perfect. Legality should be at the bottom of your argument list, since it is essentially flawed. None of my beliefs are based of off religious, so bad assumption. Ask anyone who's seen me debate abortion; I've never used the soul as an argument.

My science isn't faulty, yours is. I bet you can't even acknowledge human life begins at conception, you know, the point in which a sperm and ovum unite and development of the human begins.

It's an excellent arguement, the developed civilised world = abortion legal. Religious extremist run world = abortion illegal, it's that simple. Yes gay marriage is still illegal in many of these places, but were getting there, by 2015 we'll have it in the UK, we already have civil partnerships. Incest is a whole different matter, a friend of mine is the result of a father and daughter and he doesn't have any normal fully functional fingers. The fact that you compare homosexuality to incest says you aren't the most enlightened on this either.

Don't give me that laws made by the minority BS, because YOU are pushing for a law supported by the minority even in America. You've got to accept your way of thinking is completely outdated, a relic of the pre-enlightment age in Europe gasping for it's last breath.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/09/16/321396/poll-majority-of-americans-are-pro-choice-despite-gop-push-to-ban-abortion/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/09/america-pro-choice-majority

Especially here in the UK if you did a poll you'd find at least 80% support a woman's right to choose, I assure you, it's not a minority passed law here and everywhere else.

I never said you were religious, I said the basis for opposing choice is in religion who then pose it as science in a vain effort to give legitimacy and wider appeal to their outdated beliefs. If you're anti-choice and not so for religious religious reasons you've clearlt been brainwashed or are in dyer need of taking a biology class again. I can't acknowledge life begins at conception, because it doesn't. I will say it's difficult to say exactly when it begins, though most scientist will say it's late in development or even birth, usually at a point where the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb. But neither me nor you get to have an opinion on the matter, we must follow the science and evidence. Only you may claim to you, but you can't see that those who claim life begins at conception are either highly religious or funded by those who are.

It's redundant to debate with you people. It's not an excellent argument. I clearly showed that law means nothing. Yet you disregard that with no evidence and then believe your own lie. I'm also of the belief gay marriage will be legal in most (western) places very soon, so what?

There's actually a topic currently, with people showing why incest doesn't automatically equal octopus-person. Besides, incest doesn't automatically mean having children.

I didn't compare homosexuality with incest. No where does my argument suggest otherwise. Besides, I'm okay with both of them. So your point is nil.

Btw, don't use "the Guardian", that site is literally fucked. At the very least, don't use it against me. Because I've experienced that hunk of shit and it's literally fucked. Although it is a prime example of why people like you believe what you believe. They're not even on the left. They're a biased feminazi "kill all males" site.

It doesn't matter if you said I was religious or anything relating. Nothing I say is based on religion, nor do I really care about religion. I defend it. But only because I don't like mindlessness. It doesn't matter what the scientists say. There were scientists that worked for Hitler whom believed some pretty fucked up things.

Being viable means nothing. Technically, a new born isn't viable, nor is a 6 year old. Terrible argument.

Yet again, someone ignores everything I say rather than actually argue against my points.

When did you clearly show law means nothing? I will agree laws can be against popular will, however in this case they are not, all but the tiniest minority support abortion in the UK.

Yes it will be, it's called progession, your opposition to abortion is regression.

Yes incest doesn't automatically mean "octopus-person" as you put it, BTW I find that very offensive, my friends fingers aren't formed properly, he's not an octopus person.

And yes you did compare them, you put legalising gay marriage in a category with incest, quite typical of those who oppse it who say "if we allow gay marriage we may as well allow incest and beastiality" You wouldn't bring it up like that if you didn't oppose it.

And I will use the Guardian, it's very credible and respectable newspaper, unlike the Fox gossip show... errr I mean Fox 'News' you clearly blindly follow.

You may not follow what religion says, but you following the opinions of those who do.

So you claim the science supports your view one minute then say it doesn't matter what scientists say? Well done. Then bring up the instant lose an arguement item of Nazis. Of course there scientists who worked for Hitler, they were under orders to make claims that supported Nazi views or were Nazi's themselves. They weren't adhering to proper scientific principle, much as christian scientists today do, they have their world view and manipulate evidence to support it, rather than letting the evidence shape their worldview.

When the fuck did I say "viable" WTF does that even mean in this context?

I am repsonding to everything you say, but why the fuck would I listen? You've done nothing but give opinion on a matter where you can't have opinion, you've done nothing but spout unfounded crap. Please presnt evidence to support your case, FYI it's down to you to do this as you're arguing against the established principle.

Rage19:
When did you clearly show law means nothing? I will agree laws can be against popular will, however in this case they are not, all but the tiniest minority support abortion in the UK.

I didn't claim law is against popular will. Where did you get that from? It doesn't matter if it's the majority or the minority who declare law, or at least support it.

Yes it will be, it's called progession, your opposition to abortion is regression.

My opposition to abortion isn't regression. Sure, it was illegal at one state, and now it's not. That means nothing. Law is flawed, as I'm trying to state. Law does not equal right.

Yes incest doesn't automatically mean "octopus-person" as you put it, BTW I find that very offensive, my friends fingers aren't formed properly, he's not an octopus person.

And what is he/she's condition? Because deformed fingers don't just happen because of incest. Incest, as far as I'm aware, only inceases the likelihood of genetic disorders.

And yes you did compare them, you put legalising gay marriage in a category with incest, quite typical of those who oppse it who say "if we allow gay marriage we may as well allow incest and beastiality" You wouldn't bring it up like that if you didn't oppose it.

I didn't compare them. It was simply a part of a similar argument. I also agree with beastiality in cases where the animal doesn't suffer. So you're wrong.

And I will use the Guardian, it's very credible and respectable newspaper, unlike the Fox gossip show... errr I mean Fox 'News' you clearly blindly follow.

Wake up mate. You're wrong. Not only is there many articles that prove the Guardian is biased; I don't at all follow Fox News. I'm not even from the US, meaning Fox News doesn't broadcast in Australia... At least not on free-to-air TV.

You may not follow what religion says, but you following the opinions of those who do.

Congratulations. I have similar opinions to those of religious persons. And in my opinion, anyone for abortion has similar opinions to those of Hitler. Ultimately, this means nothing.

So you claim the science supports your view one minute then say it doesn't matter what scientists say? Well done. Then bring up the instant lose an arguement item of Nazis. Of course there scientists who worked for Hitler, they were under orders to make claims that supported Nazi views or were Nazi's themselves. They weren't adhering to proper scientific principle, much as christian scientists today do, they have their world view and manipulate evidence to support it, rather than letting the evidence shape their worldview.

Science does support my views. I use science because science is the only thing people with science complexes understand. That's regardless of the point. Science disproves anything the Pro-Abortion side would like to claim. Pretty much everything claimed as 'science' by the Pro-Abortion side is actually opinion more than anything. I.e., the beginning of human life and what defines 'personhood.'

Although I wouldn't argue it, I'm sure the Nazi-scientists were on to something. I do believe science could determine a 'superior' race. Simply because the human brain isn't absolute. I'm not saying there's a big difference, or maybe there's none at all--physically. But socially, there's no doubt. Interpret that as you will. But it's not what I would ever argue; simply because I'm not that kind of person.

When the fuck did I say "viable" WTF does that even mean in this context?

"...usually at a point where the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb." Wow. Do you even know what you're arguing? It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't. Because surviving outside the womb = viable. I want to face palm. I want to. But I will forgive you. I don't know everything either, we're here to learn. To be fair, when it comes to the abortion debate on this forum, I don't learn much; nonetheless, that's what I'm here for. I guess, in a way, I learn how right I really am and how wrong my opposition really is. Btw, I'm drunk and it's 4:28AM. I got kicked out of my local club, and I even had the cops come and have a brief word with me. Yet my arguments are still better than my opposition. Funny, that. Even funnier that this is no lie. I've literally been drinking beer and scotch for about 11 hours. I literally had five security guards escort me out of their club. One of the security guards, despite me leaving instantly without a fuss, called the cops. Literally, I had a brief 1 minute discussion with the cops before I left, due to me having a brain. I'm literally still winning this debate, at least in my opinion. I literally boiled the kettle 2 hours ago because I wanted to prepare some hotdogs for myself. I'm literally going to go finish the job. Seeing how abortion is legal, I'd really appreciate some basis behind it. Seeing how 50 million are slaughtered every year. At least 10 thousand past 20 weeks in the US, probably a million worldwide past 20 weeks. Give me some justification, please. Or I'm better off just necking myself and living in eternal bliss.

It is my belief that everyone deserves respect from birth (although to be fair, conception), until they lose it. Having differing opinions and being straight out wrong isn't enough to lose my respect, but quite frankly, it's not going well for everyone on these forums. It's a struggle to think otherwise. I even have some respect for Hitler, seeing how he argubly accomplished quite a lot. This is saying something. I.e., I've lost hope in humanity. Or at least my ideal humanity. Or at least Western humanity. Seeing how we have it quite well and should actually be doing something about the worlds issues.

I am repsonding to everything you say, but why the fuck would I listen? You've done nothing but give opinion on a matter where you can't have opinion, you've done nothing but spout unfounded crap. Please presnt evidence to support your case, FYI it's down to you to do this as you're arguing against the established principle.

It's quite clear you aren't listening, or at the very least understanding my point of view. Everything I've said has some basis. I wouldn't say it otherwise. In the same way I somewhat acknowledge what everyone else says must have some basis. Whether you want to claim science or philosophy, there's obviously some basis to every claim, unless you're a fruit-loop that doesn't even think about such claims.

Btw, I've presented evidence. You simply ignore it; which wouldn't be a first.

Magichead:

F4LL3N:
we're basing everything off of a couple hundred years at most (although realistically probably only 30-40 years of data collection.)

That's....just a lie. And you either know it's a lie, in which case you're being deliberately dishonest, or I genuinely can't comprehend the level of willful ignorance you've sunk yourself to.

There's an entire field of science called Paleoclimatology fer fuck's sake.

Well maybe they have perceived data, which is probably correct. But it's not far-feteched to be skeptical about air bubbles in ice, or anything of the sort, and making direct conclusions that end up costing billions of dollars. All because you think you have the correct data of millions of years worth of temperature. I'm no scientist, but determining the temperature over millions of years based on evidence, even if that evidence is correct, is a little different than determining evolution due to fossils. For all we know, a solar ray or something could have caused any such difference, and we'd have nothing to say otherwise. I'm talking about direct human observance. I can't think of anything, not that I'm saying there isn't anything, that would be able to be that exact to come to such a conclusion.

F4LL3N:
-snip-

You haven't proven anything! You just claimed your right because you are, little more, presented zero evidence, a typical religious arguement. You haven't provided a single link to a journal, published work or news article. The only ones I can find are published by christian bias sources. A fetus is NOT a person, that's why we call it a fetus. An acorn is not a tree, so we don't call it a tree!

You shouldn't get your statistics from websites like "abortionno.org" Yes I did your own research for you, which takes complete wild guesses at how many abortions take places in developing countries, and says "83% of abortions happen in developing countries" Something they are clearly guessing at as they don't have proper records.

You just answered your damn question about incest, it increases the likelyhood of genetic conditions, hence is the cause in a lot of cases! In this case very dramatically because of the closeness of the parents. I never did ask my friend what he had, I was more polite than that because it didn't matter, he just mentioned it was the result of incest.

Again you say "many articles" that dicredit the Guardian, yet don't present any of them. You claim to not watch Fox News, but your thoughts and arguing style bare a striking resemblance.

Your argument is quite typical of drunk person actually, senseless ramblings with no basis in reality, please just stop, just about everyone here is telling you how wrong you are, the majority of people who aren't a religious nutjob will tell you how wrong you are. Please your ignorance is painful.

Haha, yea I saw this on John Stewart :P

This basically is a political trolling add-in to keep the personhood bill from passing, the exact phrasing was that it would be illegal to "Deposit sperm anywhere but in a woman's vagina."

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a few murders to commit.

Captcha: murphy's law. maybe that explains how this happened...

Rage19:

"An excellent arguement."

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Racecarlock:
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/02/09/oklahoma-democrat-adds-masturbation-amendment-to-personhood-bill/

How did we get here? How did politics get this fucknuts? You know what the worst part is? I used to joke about this? I kept saying "Next thing you know there will be an ant-masturbation bill",

It will be a dark day when the government requires us to masturbate ants.

Anyways, us Democrats have a strange sense of humor. For all I know, he could be attempting to be snarky and mock the previous bill saying that a person can be considered pregnant before they even have sex.

Sort of like how one small corporation was mocking the supreme court's "Corporations = People" bill by running as a republican governor.

Witty Name Here:

Anyways, us Democrats have a strange sense of humor. For all I know, he could be attempting to be snarky and mock the previous bill saying that a person can be considered pregnant before they even have sex.

*groan*

Seriously. I "like" the US republicans just as much as you do, but there's a medical consensus about that, the duration of the pregnancy is counted from the first day of the last period. That's not the same as the age of the fetus, of course, but that's a rule in medicine.

DrVornoff:
SNIP

Fair enough. I'm much the same at this point.

Rage19:

F4LL3N:
-snip-

You haven't proven anything! You just claimed your right because you are, little more, presented zero evidence, a typical religious arguement. You haven't provided a single link to a journal, published work or news article. The only ones I can find are published by christian bias sources. A fetus is NOT a person, that's why we call it a fetus. An acorn is not a tree, so we don't call it a tree!

You shouldn't get your statistics from websites like "abortionno.org" Yes I did your own research for you, which takes complete wild guesses at how many abortions take places in developing countries, and says "83% of abortions happen in developing countries" Something they are clearly guessing at as they don't have proper records.

You just answered your damn question about incest, it increases the likelyhood of genetic conditions, hence is the cause in a lot of cases! In this case very dramatically because of the closeness of the parents. I never did ask my friend what he had, I was more polite than that because it didn't matter, he just mentioned it was the result of incest.

Again you say "many articles" that dicredit the Guardian, yet don't present any of them. You claim to not watch Fox News, but your thoughts and arguing style bare a striking resemblance.

Your argument is quite typical of drunk person actually, senseless ramblings with no basis in reality, please just stop, just about everyone here is telling you how wrong you are, the majority of people who aren't a religious nutjob will tell you how wrong you are. Please your ignorance is painful.

I've been debating this for several months now. I'm beyond the point of providing any source or evidence. It's redundant. Because people simply ignore the facts that go against their beliefs.

But just to humour you. The Alan Guttmacher Institute claim, at least in this source, that there are 45.5 million abortions worldwide per year. 35.5 million in developing countries and 10 million in developed countries. Meaning 78.02% happen in developing countries.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

Concerning incest, although it is off-topic, genetic problems aren't even a factor unless you're specifically arguing incest reproduction. So that means nothing.

I have no interest in providing any sources against the Guardian. For one, it is a far-left wing "news" site, not a site based on scientific data or unbiased philosophy. It's clear they have an agenda. Simply look at any abortion article and you'll see all the facts against them.

I'm fairly uninterested in debating this with you. You used the infamous "an acorn in not a tree" line on me, despite it being irrelevant. I think it's time to agree to disagree.

F4LL3N:

McMullen:

F4LL3N:

That's an opinion. There's no scientific evidence against it unless you put arbitrary meaning to the word 'person.'

Actually, there's lots of scientific evidence to show that there's no brain or nervous system in a zygote. No thinking or feeling is going on in that cell, my friend. Not a person. You can say it's a person, but then it is YOU who are being arbitrary, and being arbitrary kinda means you have no argument, doesn't it? If you want to say it's a person, you are the one who needs evidence. That's the way positive claims and evidence work.

This is why I can't take any of you seriously. I said nothing about a brain or nervous system in a zygote. Anything that proves you wrong, you either completely ignore, as if I didn't say it, or you make up crap. I didn't put any arbitrary meaning in the word zygote or person.

Perhaps it would be clearer if you had posted somewhere in this thread what, exactly, your opinion is. You were arguing with another user who was addressing the question of whether a zygote is a person. What else was I to think?

F4LL3N:

Read carefully. Human life begins at conception. This is scientifically undeniable. It's the beginning of a new organism, of Homo sapien genus (species, to be exact), it's the first point of development. It's scientifically undeniable. It's the beginning of human life. Despite you denying it, it's UNDENIABLE.

Bolding your text and repeating yourself does the same thing for persuading a person who doesn't share your opinion as shouting louder does for communicating with someone who doesn't speak your language. You're just wasting your time and making a fool of yourself.

And now you're also making things up. I did not deny, or even address, that conception is the beginning of life.

Although, now that I think of it, I'm not entirely sure that saying it's scientifically undeniable makes any sense. That's not really the way scientists refer to a thing that can't be denied. Frankly, it's a subjective enough concept that I'm not sure biologists have even bothered addressing it. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and the zygote is alive. It's not really accurate to say that anything "starts" living. It would be more accurate to say that the genetic code of the sperm and egg combine to form a new genome. More concisely, the instructions for building a human are formed, and begin execution.

When it actually becomes a human is as easy to pin down as when a collection of plate steel becomes a ship. "When it floats" seems reasonable enough, if still arbitrary. For a human, "When it has a brain", "When it can feel", "When it is born", or "When it can survive independent of the mother" are equally arbitrary, but that's about the best distinction that can be made.

No one can say when consciousness begins, but I know that whenever it begins is either during or after the formation of the first neuron, not before. Without consciousness, a zygote or embryo is no more a person than the first plate of steel off the stack is a watercraft.

F4LL3N:

This is worse than claiming God is real. At least that is a belief, an idea. This has undeniable proof. How can someone deny undeniable proof? It's beyond logical reality. It's beyond stupidity, quite frankly.

What is the undeniable proof? The phrase "human life begins at x" itself makes no sense because two living things merge into one living thing, all three of which are unique to the human species. The significance of that is purely semantic. I don't see how it's something that science can deal with.

We're still left with a thing that is not a person being formed from two other things that are not people.

F4LL3N:

The following is an opinion, or a belief; something I've clearly claimed. All biological humans should be regarded as persons. This is as far as the word "equality" gets, in any such context.

That's your opinion. The vagueness of it leads to some ridiculous implications, but it's your opinion, and all I can do is say that I don't think you understand the full meaning of what you're saying.

F4LL3N:

The opposite is literally equilavent to what Hitler did. Deny huamns personhood.

You should know better than to invoke Godwin's Law.

Hitler denied personhood to beings that were undeniably persons, and their actions were so abhorrent because we know that those persons were capable of suffering and misery. Killing 9 million zygotes or embryos causes no suffering or misery. Comparing them is cheap and dishonest, and means you have so little confidence in your position or so little ability to defend it that those transparent tactics actually seem like one of the better courses of action you can take.

This is why you should not invoke Godwin's Law. It almost never will work in your favor.

F4LL3N:

F4LL3N:

It's reasonable to be skeptic about climate change, and even more so putting billions of dollars into preventing it. Seeing how Earth is 4.5 billion years old and we're basing everything off of a couple hundred years at most (although realistically probably only 30-40 years of data collection.)

SNIP this part

I'm no expert on climate change. Luckily, I didn't claim climate change is wrong. I simply stated, it's "reasonable to be skeptic." Interpret that as wrong as your will and/or subconscious desires.

It's reasonable to be a skeptic if you've looked at the evidence and found flaws in it, and are questioning it based on those flaws. Otherwise, you're rejecting it out of hand without having any sound reason to do so, which is not reasonable. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, then your reasonable options are to just not give it any thought and abstain from any related votes or decisions, or to go with the consensus of the relevant scientific community if it is strongly one way or another, but leave the details and persuasion to those who understand the evidence. In this case, there is a very strong consensus among climate scientists that climate change is a thing and that humans have a significant influence on it.

Most people are not reasonable in regards to climate change and other scientific findings, whether they happen to agree with the scientists or not. Al Gore, for example, and the people who take his talks at face value, are not quite reasonable. In fact, I can tell you that environmental activists are some of the least reasonable people I've encountered in terms of the science relating to their causes. You're not a bad person if you aren't reasonable either. It's just that being able to truthfully call yourself reasonable doesn't come for free; it either takes work, requires you to not have an opinion, or means putting your opinion in the hands of people who not only chose work, but chose to make it their life's work. Which would you choose?

Just a question how many of you know/are woman that have had an abortion? I'm speaking in the sense of know directly as in your girlfriend wife, sister, best friend whatever.

Stagnant:

Although I will object. I have countered and considered most of the arguments. Sure, women have a right to their body.

And I feel that this right trumps the right of the fetus to obtain what it needs to live from the woman. At the very least, this pushes the argument into the realm of subjective values questions.

Fair enough. Although I already concluded this is the case, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate on the matter. Technically, it is a question of subjective values. But as I mentioned a few months ago in another thread, it's generally not a wise decision to simply sit back and accept different views when those views arguably affect innocent people. This is part of the reason why people in favour of abortion defend those views, despite it already being legal. If they didn't, the risk of it becoming illegal increases.

Sure, there is such a thing as unsafe abortion.

I don't think I brought this up.

I didn't say you did. But this is a common argument. It's better to have abortion legal, because it's going to happen anyway. I'm slowly developing an argument against this statement.

But that means nothing if you consider abortion means murder of innocent children. Which I think, objectively, is fair enough. To someone who considers the unborn to be human, it is murder. And it means nothing compared to the millions, or even thousands if you only count past a certain point (deaths from illegal abortions.)

The problem with this is that you're assuming the conclusion before the discussion has even begun. And that's... weak.

In the same way you conclude it is not murder. This is a question of semantics.

Lack of sentience? Well, as it should be clear by now, that's a subjective definition of the concept of human or person. Even if we disclude that, sentience itself is subjective and doesn't happen over night. A newborn or a 20 year old, born healthy, may not contain full sentience. You could say, merely having some form of sentience is enough, but that's not at all scientific.

Funny, that's my argument as well - it's subjective, therefore we cannot reasonably remove people's choice from the matter.

Sure, but it's not that simple. Society cannot function if you simply let people do what ever they want. Otherwise we should legalize after-birth abortion. Other than "women have a right to their own body", it shares the exact same arguments. We've already concluded that the definition of 'person' is subjective. It shares all the same arguments and premises as abortion. Based on abortion laws, at the very least, the unborn do not have rights. We could remove the rights of born babies based on most of the same arguments.

One more thing, although it means nothing, since your reply will be completely ignorant of the facts--or at least my facts. What's the differences between 'illegal' abortion and 'legal' abortion. Sure, there's the obvious. But if it is the woman's choice; logically, isn't it the woman's choice? For instance, illegal abortions that happen in the US, perhaps because the mother is ashamed or because she doesn't have 'convient' access? Ultimately, by your standards, it's the woman's choice.

I... never brought this up. At all.

I didn't say you did. I simply wanted your opinion.

Relevantly, what is your opinion on suicide? Or consentual incest between adults? Do you believe it's there choice and should be legal?

In both cases? Yes. Although in the former case, there should be some safeguards in place to ensure that it isn't a matter of duress or psychological instability.

We agree on this. Although I extend this to all adults regardless of physical health. You may too.

EDIT: I would also like your opinion on women getting abortions from pressure of family or a partner. Which, from memory, is statistically happening quite a lot. Obviously, you believe it's the woman's choice, so it shouldn't happen. But it does. Due to legality of it. What is your opinion?

The choice is ultimately still the woman's. Nobody can force her. They can encourage her, and sometimes not wanting the backlash is enough to convince them, but it's not a matter of force.

I want to know how it is right in any way to 'encourage' a women to seek abortion? I don't believe it is. In the same way it's not right to encourage someone to commit suicide or murder. This is especially the case regarding parents and/or parnters, whom have an emotional and psychological advantage over the female. I think most "feminists" would agree.

McMullen:
Bolding your text and repeating yourself does the same thing for persuading a person who doesn't share your opinion as shouting louder does for communicating with someone who doesn't speak your language. You're just wasting your time and making a fool of yourself.

That's correct.

And now you're also making things up. I did not deny, or even address, that conception is the beginning of life.

Perhaps not. But it appears to be true.

Although, now that I think of it, I'm not entirely sure that saying it's scientifically undeniable makes any sense. That's not really the way scientists refer to a thing that can't be denied. Frankly, it's a subjective enough concept that I'm not sure biologists have even bothered addressing it. The egg is alive, the sperm is alive, and the zygote is alive. It's not really accurate to say that anything "starts" living. It would be more accurate to say that the genetic code of the sperm and egg combine to form a new genome. More concisely, the instructions for building a human are formed, and begin execution.

I think something can be scientifically undeniable. Scientists generally don't deny something, but I'm not a scientist. I don't think it is a subjective matter; when human life begins.

I believe you are stating that when a sperm and egg fuse, a new organism begins to form. Which I believe is 100% correct. From memory, the sperm has 23 chromosomes, the egg has 23. Once they fuse, scientifically, this is the beginning of human life. It's the first instance of a newly created organism. You could claim that it is a part of the women's body, and it is no more than a parasite. But I don't think that's entirely honest. With that logic, even a 39 week old fetus is a parasite not deserving of life. If that's what you want to claim, which I'm not saying you are, then you are entitled to do so. Just don't claim to be morally right in any sense of societies general moral code.

When it actually becomes a human is as easy to pin down as when a collection of plate steel becomes a ship. "When it floats" seems reasonable enough, if still arbitrary. For a human, "When it has a brain", "When it can feel", "When it is born", or "When it can survive independent of the mother" are equally arbitrary, but that's about the best distinction that can be made.

Correct, they are arbitrary. However, you still haven't convinced me my definition is arbitrary--based on what I previously mentioned. I think the 'plate steel' comparison is more in line with the sperm and egg, before they fuse. The sperm and egg, by themselves, are simply the building blocks of a human organism. A zygote is not the material needed to form a human, it is the human; it is a unique organism, whether or not it is dependent on the mother.

No one can say when consciousness begins, but I know that whenever it begins is either during or after the formation of the first neuron, not before. Without consciousness, a zygote or embryo is no more a person than the first plate of steel off the stack is a watercraft.

Arbitrary and subjective--both the definition and the concept itself. Like you're stating, we don't know when consciousness begins. I'm no expert on the matter, so take none of this as fact. I believe the sensory organs, which are needed for consciousness, develop seperately and independantly from the brain (I believe DNA is the blueprint for all of this.)

I both believe and assume the brain and each sensory organ (that process and transmit smell, sight, touch, hearing and taste) develop to a "functional" point at different points. I'm not interested at this current time to do the research, since it's quite a large field of study; but this concept seems extremely arbitrary.

The 'consciousness' argument, as I interpret it, states; one is not human until:
a)The sensory organs are fully developed.
b)The central nervous system (brain and spinal cord) are fully developed and functioning.
c)The peripheral nervous system (which connects the central nervous system to the limps and organs) is fully developed and functioning.

So as I interpret it, the 'consciousness' argument states that all of these attributes are important; however, independantly, these attributes mean nothing. I understand the reasoning, but think it's an extremely weak/terrible argument. The reasoning can be described something along the lines of; none of the parts of an electronics system are important, unless the system is fully complete and turned on.

To have consciousness, you need sentience. Since, as I understand it, 'consciousness' is the relationship between the mind and the world. While sentience is the ability to perceive senory information. Although, it's much the same argument. So, my interpretation of the argument is as follows:

a) None of the above three points are individually important.
b) It's only when the system as a whole is complete and functioning that one gains humanity.
c) Despite (b), arbitrary exceptions can be made. For example, not all "human" organisms gain full sight, or hearing.
d) Continuing on from (c), one without sight or hearing is still human; so long as the overall concept of consciousness is present. The 'soul', if you will--funnily enough.

I'll give this definition a little bit of credit. It's an effective excuse to exterminate the mentally retarded and defective, you know, the non-humans, non-persons.

e) Despite (b), (c), and (d), lacking sight or hearing doesn't equal 'non-complete' or 'non-functioning.'

f) Despite (e), lacking full brain capacity equals 'non-complete' and 'not fully functioning.'

g) Regardless of the above points, being physically deformed (lacking legs, for example) has nothing to do with what allows sentience or consciousness. Neither does many other forms of deformity or genetic problems. Perhaps this is a seperate argument altogether.

I could keep going, but this isn't an argument I've had time to develop. I think this is sufficient enough for now to show that not only is using consciousness to define humanity completely subjective, but it in itself doesn't hold up to high standards and is sloppy at best.

F4LL3N:

This is worse than claiming God is real. At least that is a belief, an idea. This has undeniable proof. How can someone deny undeniable proof? It's beyond logical reality. It's beyond stupidity, quite frankly.

What is the undeniable proof? The phrase "human life begins at x" itself makes no sense because two living things merge into one living thing, all three of which are unique to the human species. The significance of that is purely semantic. I don't see how it's something that science can deal with.

We're still left with a thing that is not a person being formed from two other things that are not people.

For all intents and purposes, this newly formed zygote will be born. It's attached to the mother, but ultimately, it is a unique organism. It develops uniquely and it has unique DNA (the tumour/cancer argument doesn't apply, since that is mutated DNA; 'rogue' cells.) I don't see the reasoning behind denying this. You've yet to give one, other than claiming consciousness is what makes one human. Even accepting this, it does not deny that human life begins at conception. Stating it's simply "two living things merging to form one living thing" does not dispove my claim.

F4LL3N:

The following is an opinion, or a belief; something I've clearly claimed. All biological humans should be regarded as persons. This is as far as the word "equality" gets, in any such context.

That's your opinion. The vagueness of it leads to some ridiculous implications, but it's your opinion, and all I can do is say that I don't think you understand the full meaning of what you're saying.

It's vague to prevent discrimination. Judging from history, it's not a good idea to disclude certain biological humans from personhood. It's funny how this whole movement is about anti-discrimination, yet when I make a definition as to prevent discrimination, it's seen as wrong.

F4LL3N:

The opposite is literally equilavent to what Hitler did. Deny huamns personhood.

You should know better than to invoke Godwin's Law.

I do it all the time while debating abortion. I don't believe this in itself weakens my argument or makes me discreditable.

Hitler denied personhood to beings that were undeniably persons, and their actions were so abhorrent because we know that those persons were capable of suffering and misery. Killing 9 million zygotes or embryos causes no suffering or misery. Comparing them is cheap and dishonest, and means you have so little confidence in your position or so little ability to defend it that those transparent tactics actually seem like one of the better courses of action you can take.
This is why you should not invoke Godwin's Law. It almost never will work in your favor.

Now this is semantics. Those who Hitler targetted were not undeniably persons in his opinion. In the same way zygotes and embryos are not undeniably persons to you. The ability to suffer obviously means nothing to me or the millions of others who consider abortion to be murder. If we assumed it did, then why is abortion past 24 weeks still legally happening in the world? The CDC reports (US data) that 7604 out of 781,247 (1990), 9108 out of 642,170 (2000), and 8028 out of 618,916 (2008) of legal abortions were above 21 weeks gestation age (19 weeks fetal age.) I'd like to have more precise statistics on 24+ weeks fetal age, but all those who report on abortions would prefer to cover that up. So as far as I'm concerned, these are the numbers I'm using in regards to the fetus' that can suffer. The reasons given are covered up also, so as far as I'm concerned, whether or not these occurred due to the mothers health means nothing to me. It's neither scientific nor statistically valid. But neither is excluding this data for no valid reason.

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm

F4LL3N:

I'm no expert on climate change. Luckily, I didn't claim climate change is wrong. I simply stated, it's "reasonable to be skeptic." Interpret that as wrong as your will and/or subconscious desires.

...SNIP to prevent further discussion of this... Which would you choose?

Well, I generally don't have an opinion. But if I were to debate it, I'd generally go with the scientific concensus while still remaining skeptical (not that I am particularly skeptical, I'd simply prefer to be on both sides of the climate debate if I were ever to partake in it... I have yet to debate climate change, as it is not really in my interest. Regardless of climate change, I'm 100% for renewable energy; solar, wind, etc. It just seems like the next step to take. Even if switching fully to these forms didn't have any effect on climate change, it would have an effect on the way society thinks and functions. Which is a good thing.

It's okay, just come to the UK. Our politics still has a semblence of sanity.

Bertylicious:

Not G. Ivingname:
And they plan on enforcing this... HOW? You don't really need anything that the state can track like with drugs (such as devices to use the drug, the drug itself, etc). Only a hand and an active imagination.

Every single person in the state above the age 13 is going to suddenly be a felon (disregarding those who have lost their private bits before using it). This has to be the DUMBEST law proposed outside of "mandatory throwing of all babies off of cliffs."

The answer is to remove people's hands. Only then can they live free of the temptation to shame themselves before God.

Wedding rings would then need to go on the toe of course.

Nope, all that would do would be increase the demand for yoga classes, assuming we get to keep our feet :)

Alright, time to make this into a game.

How many people have you single-handedly "killed?"

Freechoice:
How many people have you single-handedly "killed?"

have you single-handedly "killed?"

single-handedly "killed?"

single-handedly

single

handedly

Hehehehehehehehe.... you so meant to do that.

Racecarlock:
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2012/02/09/oklahoma-democrat-adds-masturbation-amendment-to-personhood-bill/

How did we get here? How did politics get this fucknuts? You know what the worst part is? I used to joke about this? I kept saying "Next thing you know there will be an ant-masturbation bill", but I didn't even begin to think that had any actual chance of happening. And yet, here we are. I don't know if this senator is also joking, but as a guy who jerks off constantly, it's not even a funny joke. It's not funny anymore.

I can't make jokes about politics anymore. I can't make exaggerations anymore. I now know that all of my slippery slope theories and crazy exaggerations actually have a chance of actually becoming political topics. I mean, what the hell will we bring up next? Segregation? Slavery? I don't know, it's all entirely possible now. If shit like this can be brought up, then I don't know what can't be brought up anymore. I just don't know anymore. This just broke my brain.

Actually certain right wing media personalities and congress members already try to argue that forcing ends to slavery and segregation is unjust... somehow (guess where they're from usually).

On that note however, thousands of my unborn children died on Constance Johnson's face.