North Dakota Ballot Measure Would Ban Abortions in all Circumstances No Exception

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Shaoken:

lowhat:

Shaoken:

Alright, let's stop there.

Define human. Define the point at which a sperm and an egg cease to be a cluster of cells and become something that is human and alive. Then prove it.

I'll save you the effort, you can't. This is one of those areas where we literally do not have the capacity to make such absolute statements by dint of our limitations.

So therefore, what moral hypocrisy is there? On one hand we have something (the raped woman) who is demonstratably human; we can percieve her and her intelligence, her sentience, her breathing, her pulse, all the charactersitics we associate with being alive. We can even see that she passes the most basic test of life; "I think, therefore I am."

Now on the other hand, we have a fetus. During the timeframe where abortion is orderarily permitted it does not have any form of intelligence or sentience, it does not breath, it does not interact with the world, it cannot survive if we remove it from the womb, in short, it can't pass the most basic test of life.

So what moral hypocrisy is there? One of these things is undisputably alive, the other is not undisputably alive, nor is there any concesses on when it becomes alive instead of merely being the potential to be alive.

I take it you've niether been raped nor given birth, so your thoughts on what's "highly unlikey" or not is utterly irrelevant. Needless to say there are some women who have been raped and demonstratably showed signs of suffering further mental trauma at giving birth which in and of itself is a highly stressful event.

Now time for Anedotal Evidence time; I have a friend who has been raped and gotten pregnant due to it. She didn't chose to get an abortion, but the child died anyway. Despite never wishing to get an abortion herself, she doesn't fault rape victims who do chose to get abortions and is very much pro-choice. So who are you to tell her that she's wrong?

And what if the woman doesn't want to spend nine months pregnant because of something she didn't chose? This may suprise you, but pregnancy is not easy. The woman would have to change her entire lifestyle, she won't be able to work for the last few months, she'll be dealing with the physical side of things for months after the child has been delivered, not to mention the ever-present risk of dying in childbirth.

So you don't think she should have to raise the child, but you think she should be forced to carry it to term and completely change her life, all because of your beliefs.

This is my main bone of contention with pro-lifers; forcing other people to live by your beliefs that they don't share, for reasons you can't even prove.

I'll call you woefully out of touch with how humans live.

ANd I say, who the fuck are you to tell people how they should live their lives? No honestly, just who the fuck are you to tell other people how they should live, who are you to dictate just waht things are for? Are you some form of subject matter expert? Are you God who created the universe and knows all it's secrets? Just what gives you the right to tell others how to live their lives but doesn't give them the right to do the same to you?

So in one post, you've managed to argue that a fetus isn't alive(something that no one with even a rudimentary understanding of the modern scientific definition of life would try and claim), that it should be acceptable to terminate people as long as they are in comas or non-REM sleep,

Perhaps you need to get some better reading comprehension, because I said nothing of the sort.

I am arguing that a Fetus is not a baby from conception, that there is a point where it becomes a baby but until that point it merely has the potential, not the actuality. Coma patients and those in non-REM sleep are still sentient, more than I can say for a fetus in the earliest stages of pregnancy.

that it should be acceptable to kill infants and severely crippled people due to their inability to survive without placing the burden of survival on another person,

Again, missing the point by the length of the Pacific. You know what the difference between an infant, a crippled person and a fetus? Two have actually been born.

and that a woman's right to convenience supersedes another human's right to not have it's body violated simply because it is in an early stage of development...

I am arguing that a fetus is yet to be a human, in the same way a freshly laid egg is not a chicken.

yeah, I think this post may take the "Extremist Post of the Week" award.

And I think yours will take the "missed the point by the longest of the month" award, so take your strawmen and kindly remove them from this forum, we're trying to have a grown up and mature conversation here without making up ludicirious claims about the others positions.

1)By what standard is a coma patient sentient, whereas a fetus is not? Oh, wait, that's just an arbitrary distinction that you've made because your argument depends on it. I never implied that a fetus is a "baby" from conception, I implied that it is a human organism from conception, which is not at all the same thing.

2)Why does birth matter in the determination of whether or not it is acceptable to end a human life? Oh, wait, that's yet another arbitrary distinction you've made because you think it helps your argument.

3)You clearly don't understand the terms you are using. It is debatable whether a fetus is or is not a "person" in the legal sense, which determines what rights it is entitled to, up to and including the right to life, but again, only someone without even a rudimentary understanding of modern biology would try and claim that it is not human.

4)How shocking, now that someone has taken the extremist points you've made to their logical conclusions, rather than adjust them, you instead try and silence the voice which merely follows your own logic to the end of the path it creates. I'm sure that the next step will be to accuse me of "corrupting the youth" and demand that I drink hemlock or be exiled.

lowhat:

1)By what standard is a coma patient sentient, whereas a fetus is not? Oh, wait, that's just an arbitrary distinction that you've made because your argument depends on it. I never implied that a fetus is a "baby" from conception, I implied that it is a human organism from conception, which is not at all the same thing.

Yet despite making that distinction you still assume that anyone who wants to allow mothers to have abortions is on the same level as those who want to kill people in comas. Pot, kettle black?

A coma patient still thinks has a mind that is active. They're not braindead where there is literally nothing going on in the brain. Hence, sentient.

2)Why does birth matter in the determination of whether or not it is acceptable to end a human life? Oh, wait, that's yet another arbitrary distinction you've made because you think it helps your argument.

And your strawmen grow every tiresome.

Re-read my post and actually try to understand it this time; "I think therefore I am." A fetus that can't think is not truly sentient, whereas anyone who is not completely braindead thinks to some degree. A fetus has the potential to become "alive" but until it starts to get enough organs developed to

3)You clearly don't understand the terms you are using. It is debatable whether a fetus is or is not a "person" in the legal sense, which determines what rights it is entitled to, up to and including the right to life, but again, only someone without even a rudimentary understanding of modern biology would try and claim that it is not human.

Point out the part where I said a fetus is not a human. I said a fetus is not a baby, and it is not alive in the sense that a human is alive in the same way that if I took out your brain and replaced it with a machine to keep all your organs running that body is not really living (and no, no matter what Old World Blues says your body can't be running around without your brain it it).

4)How shocking, now that someone has taken the extremist points you've made to their logical conclusions, rather than adjust them, you instead try and silence the voice which merely follows your own logic to the end of the path it creates. I'm sure that the next step will be to accuse me of "corrupting the youth" and demand that I drink hemlock or be exiled.

Playing the victim card and comparing yourself to Socrates? Sorry to deflate your ego, but simply decreeying everything that disagrees with you "extremist" doesn't make it so. You're no Socrates, because you're not wise or humble.

Shaoken:

lowhat:

1)By what standard is a coma patient sentient, whereas a fetus is not? Oh, wait, that's just an arbitrary distinction that you've made because your argument depends on it. I never implied that a fetus is a "baby" from conception, I implied that it is a human organism from conception, which is not at all the same thing.

Yet despite making that distinction you still assume that anyone who wants to allow mothers to have abortions is on the same level as those who want to kill people in comas. Pot, kettle black?

A coma patient still thinks has a mind that is active. They're not braindead where there is literally nothing going on in the brain. Hence, sentient.

2)Why does birth matter in the determination of whether or not it is acceptable to end a human life? Oh, wait, that's yet another arbitrary distinction you've made because you think it helps your argument.

And your strawmen grow every tiresome.

Re-read my post and actually try to understand it this time; "I think therefore I am." A fetus that can't think is not truly sentient, whereas anyone who is not completely braindead thinks to some degree. A fetus has the potential to become "alive" but until it starts to get enough organs developed to

3)You clearly don't understand the terms you are using. It is debatable whether a fetus is or is not a "person" in the legal sense, which determines what rights it is entitled to, up to and including the right to life, but again, only someone without even a rudimentary understanding of modern biology would try and claim that it is not human.

Point out the part where I said a fetus is not a human. I said a fetus is not a baby, and it is not alive in the sense that a human is alive in the same way that if I took out your brain and replaced it with a machine to keep all your organs running that body is not really living (and no, no matter what Old World Blues says your body can't be running around without your brain it it).

4)How shocking, now that someone has taken the extremist points you've made to their logical conclusions, rather than adjust them, you instead try and silence the voice which merely follows your own logic to the end of the path it creates. I'm sure that the next step will be to accuse me of "corrupting the youth" and demand that I drink hemlock or be exiled.

Playing the victim card and comparing yourself to Socrates? Sorry to deflate your ego, but simply decreeying everything that disagrees with you "extremist" doesn't make it so. You're no Socrates, because you're not wise or humble.

Wow, you're just full of words that you don't understand, aren't you pal?

1)I don't know what "level" you're talking about, all I've pointed out is that it doesn't make any sense to allow killing one human on the basis of lack of sentience, while not allowing it for others, with sentience or lack thereof being the reason that allows the killing. And, no, a person in a coma does not think, the lack of any conscious response being a large part of what defines a coma. We're interacting on the internet, it's not all that difficult to type the word "coma" into your search bar so that you know what it means.

2)Replace the word "coma" in your search bar with the word "alive", and see if you can understand how you've misused it. Infants and sleeping people aren't truly sentient in the sense of possessing conscious thought either[they merely posses the "potential"(ooh, I can use that word too)to be sentient], do those also fall into the class of things which can be freely killed due to a lack of sentience? Or is it more of a "Shaoken arbitrarily decides when a lack of sentience opens the door to killing" sort of thing?

3)Trying to argue that a fetus is not alive shows a lack of understanding of what "alive" means. Please look it up before you try and make some sort of point that is clearly absurd by definition.

4)Victim card? Literally LOL on that one. If there were a commonly accepted definition of that phrase, I'd ask you to look it up as well, but, alas, there is not. I merely used the example of Socrates because he was famous for using the logical inconsistencies in someone's argument to undermine said argument, although obviously he did that via questioning rather than hyperbole. Another commonality was that he angered enough people by doing so, that he was asked to leave Athens so that they could "try...to have a grown up and mature conversation". I have no pretensions of being on a level with Socrates, one of histories most famous thinkers, there probably isn't a person alive today on his level.

Ryotknife:

Abomination:
People in the United States really seem to care far too much about what other people do with their bodies that in no way affects them.

Land of the free, right?

it is a morally grey area. On the one hand, killing children is bad. On the other hand, so is telling someone what to do with their body.

There is no clear cut right or wrong answer.

yup. no clear right or wrong on the question of making girls and women carry the babies of the men that raped them.
it really is a difficult question whether the interests of a traumatised woman weighs up against the interests of a clump of cells.

besides, as we all know, women have magical rape-sperm killing abilities, so raped women really don't need abortions.

OT: this is just completely ludicrous. please tell me this bill gets completely quashed.

lowhat:
Wow, you're just full of words that you don't understand, aren't you pal?

I'm not your pal.

1)I don't know what "level" you're talking about, all I've pointed out is that it doesn't make any sense to allow killing one human on the basis of lack of sentience, while not allowing it for others, with sentience or lack thereof being the reason that allows the killing. And, no, a person in a coma does not think, the lack of any conscious response being a large part of what defines a coma. We're interacting on the internet, it's not all that difficult to type the word "coma" into your search bar so that you know what it means.

A coma patient still has brain activity, hence why they are in a coma and not braindead. A fetus has less brainwave activity than a coma patient.

For someone who rallies against arbitary definitions, you sure enjoy using them, what with connecting "sentient" with "concious" when it's not irrelevant.

2)Replace the word "coma" in your search bar with the word "alive", and see if you can understand how you've misused it. Infants and sleeping people aren't truly sentient in the sense of possessing conscious thought either[they merely posses the "potential"(ooh, I can use that word too)to be sentient], do those also fall into the class of things which can be freely killed due to a lack of sentience? Or is it more of a "Shaoken arbitrarily decides when a lack of sentience opens the door to killing" sort of thing?

Oh, so all those years that I was told people dream when they sleep was a lie then? I must go a spread the gospel of lolwut on how people don't have any form of brain activity period when they sleep.

Even when unconcious people retain their identity in dreams, therefore still sentient.

3)Trying to argue that a fetus is not alive shows a lack of understanding of what "alive" means. Please look it up before you try and make some sort of point that is clearly absurd by definition.

Whenever I say "alive" in this context it means life as in what normal people consider it; how many people on the street would consider being completely braindead and living entirely on machinery being "alive?"

A fetus is a person in the same way that an egg is a chicken; eventually but not yet. Unless you're going to say that a fertilised egg less than a day old is a person you're making your own distinction.

4)Victim card? Literally LOL on that one. If there were a commonly accepted definition of that phrase, I'd ask you to look it up as well, but, alas, there is not. I merely used the example of Socrates because he was famous for using the logical inconsistencies in someone's argument to undermine said argument, although obviously he did that via questioning rather than hyperbole. Another commonality was that he angered enough people by doing so, that he was asked to leave Athens so that they could "try...to have a grown up and mature conversation". I have no pretensions of being on a level with Socrates, one of histories most famous thinkers, there probably isn't a person alive today on his level.

Bullshit, you used Socrates because you get off on feeling superior to people.

lowhat:

1)I don't know what "level" you're talking about, all I've pointed out is that it doesn't make any sense to allow killing one human on the basis of lack of sentience, while not allowing it for others, with sentience or lack thereof being the reason that allows the killing. And, no, a person in a coma does not think, the lack of any conscious response being a large part of what defines a coma. We're interacting on the internet, it's not all that difficult to type the word "coma" into your search bar so that you know what it means.

Someone who's in a coma should be allowed to die. That is, decide beforehand or give consent for someone else to decide what happens to them in the event that they go into a coma where it's unlikely that they'll wake up. But yes, a person in a coma is so similar to a person in a coma because the fetus of course had lived a life before conception where they were able to form relationships and gain companions that it could trust and allow to decide whether or not it should be aborted in the event that it was born. Oh, no; that doesn't work because it hasn't lived yet and therefore the mother is the arbiter of consent.

2)Replace the word "coma" in your search bar with the word "alive", and see if you can understand how you've misused it. Infants and sleeping people aren't truly sentient in the sense of possessing conscious thought either[they merely posses the "potential"(ooh, I can use that word too)to be sentient], do those also fall into the class of things which can be freely killed due to a lack of sentience? Or is it more of a "Shaoken arbitrarily decides when a lack of sentience opens the door to killing" sort of thing?

Yeah, kill people who lack sentience. That is perfectly fine. If a person wants to die in that case then they should be able to die. If a mother wants to abort a fetus then she should be able to abort. Ultimately it's a persons decision in both cases and statistics show that abortion rates are lower in places where it is legal and freely available so it turns out that when people are allowed to make the decision for themselves they make it in a safer environment and less people do it overall. If you actually wanted less people to have abortions you should want it to be legal. Do you want less people to have abortions or do you just want to feel good about yourself while more fetuses are aborted because of your irrationality?

3)Trying to argue that a fetus is not alive shows a lack of understanding of what "alive" means. Please look it up before you try and make some sort of point that is clearly absurd by definition.

Life isn't even close to the point. The main argument in abortion is over viability and responsibility.

4)Victim card? Literally LOL on that one. If there were a commonly accepted definition of that phrase, I'd ask you to look it up as well, but, alas, there is not. I merely used the example of Socrates because he was famous for using the logical inconsistencies in someone's argument to undermine said argument, although obviously he did that via questioning rather than hyperbole. Another commonality was that he angered enough people by doing so, that he was asked to leave Athens so that they could "try...to have a grown up and mature conversation". I have no pretensions of being on a level with Socrates, one of histories most famous thinkers, there probably isn't a person alive today on his level.

You have no pretensions? Right. You are right about one thing, at least; You are no Socrates.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked