NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean really, why is there no support for anti-life?

Edit: This means things such as Pro-suicide, Pro-genocide, Anti-reproduction. I assumed this was implied.

What is the position of "anti-life"?

Pro-Capital Punishment, Pro-Abortion and Pro-Euthanasia?

Pro-Genocide...? :confused:

because those two words combined would conjure the dead Christian Crusaders from the grave and they would proceed to slaughter every man woman and child who was not a conservo-christian-whacko.

What about anti-death?

It seems to me a binary perspective is the prevalent perspective of the uninformed and singularly biased in order to remove understanding of the complexities of many situations. It is testament to their misunderstanding and intent.

I mean really, why is there no support for anti-life?

There are people out there who are anti-life. They're a minority, but they're out there.

because those two words combined would conjure the dead Christian Crusaders from the grave and they would proceed to slaughter every man woman and child who was not a conservo-christian-whacko.
Yikes. :eek:
This has potential for many, many chuckles.

It seems to me a binary perspective is the prevalent perspective of the uninformed and singularly biased in order to remove understanding of the complexities of many situations. It is testament to their misunderstanding and intent.

Thank you, Professor, for the lesson.

Now, don't you have a class to teach? ;)

Thank you, Professor, for the lesson.

Now, don't you have a class to teach? ;)
Not yet, it's my two hour porn marathon.

;)
I honestly thought this would be a stricter thread, but again, i'm thwarted.

Not yet, it's my two hour porn marathon.

;)
I honestly thought this would be a stricter thread, but again, i'm thwarted.

Some debates desperately need humor. Reminds us that we're all basically on the same side.

Just like these artificial distinctions lead to conflict, a brief moment of unity due to a collective amusement brings the debate some civility. :)

This is the Maddox thing ain't it? Anti choice but for killing babies?

I'm pro-choice. Stupid term for it, but it still sounds better than pro-death. Not that it matters, for death happens whether you're for it or against.
And an embryo doesn't know it's being killed (actually, I don't think it's alive. It doesn't eat, as such, it doesn't reproduce. The only thing it does is grow, but that hardly justifies calling it life)

It seems to me a binary perspective is the prevalent perspective of the uninformed and singularly biased in order to remove understanding of the complexities of many situations. It is testament to their misunderstanding and intent.
Seems to you? For it doesn't seem anything. That is exactly how it is.
Do you really think the Dems care about "absolute abortion rights"? Think about it, don't you think if they really did feel so strongly about it, they would have filibustered that bill that was passed a few years ago to ban Planned Parenthood from getting any federal funds?
Don't you think that if the Reps really cared about a fetus's right to life they would have done a filibuster or some other maneuver to stop President Clinton from expanding funding for abortions here and abroad and raising taxes a tiny amount to pay for them?
My suggestion is this:
Look at their words then look at their actions. Those who think that abortion is THE issue. You need to look at what your supposed supporters in Congress have been doing cause, seems to me they got you all by the string.

I'm pro-choice. Stupid term for it, but it still sounds better than pro-death. Not that it matters, for death happens whether you're for it or against.
And an embryo doesn't know it's being killed (actually, I don't think it's alive. It doesn't eat, as such, it doesn't reproduce. The only thing it does is grow, but that hardly justifies calling it life)
think about what you just said. think about it carefully.

What is the position of "anti-life"?

Pro-Capital Punishment, Pro-Abortion and Pro-Euthanasia?

Pro-Genocide...? :confused:

Not necessarily pro genocide, but pro-coerced abortions might be an anti-life position. Pro war would be. Anti-social welfare programs.

China has a somewhat anti life position right now. I say somewhat because infanticide is illegal, but abortions are encouraged. Of course, they had a rabidly pro-life position imposed for years, and it has left them in a really difficult situation now.

But that's because Mao had the theory that if they can't overcome other nations by means of money and power, they'd do it by sheer force of numbers. But they forgot one very important element. Cheap overseas fares.

Do you really think the Dems care about "absolute abortion rights"? Think about it, don't you think if they really did feel so strongly about it, they would have filibustered that bill that was passed a few years ago to ban Planned Parenthood from getting any federal funds?
Don't you think that if the Reps really cared about a fetus's right to life they would have done a filibuster or some other maneuver to stop President Clinton from expanding funding for abortions here and abroad and raising taxes a tiny amount to pay for them?
My suggestion is this:
Look at their words then look at their actions. Those who think that abortion is THE issue. You need to look at what your supposed supporters in Congress have been doing cause, seems to me they got you all by the string.

I fully agree with you, Whittier, although you could have been a little "whittier" about it hyuk hyuk. However, I don't think your point is very pointy in regards to this thread. I am pro-life, but I don't trust the Republican family-values brown-nosers any more than many Democrats - because they say and do what they need to in order to stay in power. The Democrats would do the same thing.
In regards to the initial question, I think that the Pro-Life movement, being directly opposed to the Pro-Choice movement, is by definition Anti-Choice, or at least "Anti-Pro-Choice." And in the same way the Pro-Choice party is Anti-Life. Nobody who is on the one side will admit this, however, because both labels sound horrible (being any kind of "Anti-" movement is a bad image). So they're both "for" something, and the only debate is over what's the better value (at least at the level of labels). Personally, I think you shouldn't have the choice to kill someone else, even a dependent, and you can't even have that choice if you don't yourself have life - therefore, from a value-debate point of view, Life trumps Choice, especially when that choice is in direct opposition to Life and negates other choices (i.e. all the choices the baby would make in its life).

Seems to you? For it doesn't seem anything. That is exactly how it is.
Do you really think the Dems care about "absolute abortion rights"? Think about it, don't you think if they really did feel so strongly about it, they would have filibustered that bill that was passed a few years ago to ban Planned Parenthood from getting any federal funds?
Don't you think that if the Reps really cared about a fetus's right to life they would have done a filibuster or some other maneuver to stop President Clinton from expanding funding for abortions here and abroad and raising taxes a tiny amount to pay for them?
My suggestion is this:
Look at their words then look at their actions. Those who think that abortion is THE issue. You need to look at what your supposed supporters in Congress have been doing cause, seems to me they got you all by the string.
You should consider that it isn't that simple, and you'd have to follow each individual purusit of each individual congressman/woman in every case, to know really what they want. As individuals in a larger, progressive legislative sense. There is a lot of give&take on the floor - one trade for another - except of course the bigger trades happen with unanimity in a vote.
For example, as irritated as i am with the republicans, i still admire a few of them for considering outside their party lines (of late) like with stem cell research and more locally some ethics issues. I feel better educating myself than i do polarizing - unless there's a joke to be made at someone's expense.
;)

Because all the anti-life folks, once they realize their views, see the hypocracy of staying alive to promote them, and promptly throw themselves off a bridge.

I fully agree with you, Whittier, although you could have been a little "whittier" about it hyuk hyuk. However, I don't think your point is very pointy in regards to this thread. I am pro-life, but I don't trust the Republican family-values brown-nosers any more than many Democrats - because they say and do what they need to in order to stay in power. The Democrats would do the same thing.
In regards to the initial question, I think that the Pro-Life movement, being directly opposed to the Pro-Choice movement, is by definition Anti-Choice, or at least "Anti-Pro-Choice." And in the same way the Pro-Choice party is Anti-Life. Nobody who is on the one side will admit this, however, because both labels sound horrible (being any kind of "Anti-" movement is a bad image).

Not really. The pro-choice people aren't opposed to people not having abortions. They range from not giving a damn whether or not you have an abortion to hoping you don't have an abortion, but opposing the notion that it should not be a choice that you get to make.

"Pro-life" people are in fact anti-choice, because they don't want the choice to be available to people. There movement ranges from those who don't think you should have the choice but will pray and mope if you make the one they don't like to those who will kill you, and those who help you, if you make the one that they don't like (granted, the latter is rather rare, but it exists). So the entire pro-choice movement consists of people who favor choice, but the "pro-life" movement only consists of those who are against choice, but includes a few who are somewhat anti-life.

www.churchofeuthanasia.com

Not really. The pro-choice people aren't opposed to people not having abortions. They range from not giving a damn whether or not you have an abortion to hoping you don't have an abortion, but opposing the notion that it should not be a choice that you get to make.

"Pro-life" people are in fact anti-choice, because they don't want the choice to be available to people. There movement ranges from those who don't think you should have the choice but will pray and mope if you make the one they don't like to those who will kill you, and those who help you, if you make the one that they don't like (granted, the latter is rather rare, but it exists). So the entire pro-choice movement consists of people who favor choice, but the "pro-life" movement only consists of those who are against choice, but includes a few who are somewhat anti-life.
That is false. Not all pro-lifers are anti choice. It is not that simple. That is why we need four catagories and not just 2. I am tired of extremists trying to force people into two camps.
Most of us don't really want anything to do with your abortion war. All the prochoice and prolife people need to be dumped on an island where they can duke it out without everyone else being forced to put up with it.
Its just that the militants (both camps) are a bunch of loud mouthed hokeys who shout out the rest of us.

That is false. Not all pro-lifers are anti choice. It is not that simple. That is why we need four catagories and not just 2. I am tired of extremists trying to force people into two camps.
Most of us don't really want anything to do with your abortion war. All the prochoice and prolife people need to be dumped on an island where they can duke it out without everyone else being forced to put up with it.
Its just that the militants (both camps) are a bunch of loud mouthed hokeys who shout out the rest of us.

You win my vote for "Post that makes the most fuckin sense of any post in ages"

think about what you just said. think about it carefully.

I think he is attempting to distuinguish life from Life. Cells of my body are life. Animals are Life. People posting on this forum are Life (though one can wonder about some). Following this a foetus in the first trimester would be life with a small l.

Lets change the viewpoint: when is someone no longer alive, also known as death ?

When the heart stops beating ? An early foetus does not have a heart.
When he no longer breathes ? An early foetus does not breathe.
When he cannot feel anything anymore ? An early foetus can not feel anything.
When the cells of his body no longer divide ? Then we have buried quite a lot of people alive.

I think he is attempting to distuinguish life from Life. Cells of my body are life. Animals are Life. People posting on this forum are Life (though one can wonder about some). Following this a foetus in the first trimester would be life with a small l.

Lets change the viewpoint: when is someone no longer alive, also known as death ?

When the heart stops beating ? An early foetus does not have a heart.
When he no longer breathes ? An early foetus does not breathe.
When he cannot feel anything anymore ? An early foetus can not feel anything.
When the cells of his body no longer divide ? Then we have buried quite a lot of people alive.
I was questioning him cause he said a fetus doesn't eat (not true), it doesn't sex therefore its not alive.
So anything that doesn't engage in sex or is capable of engaging in sex is not alive?
He also said growth is not enough for it to be alive. But basically plants don't eat, they make their own energy, but they don't eat. All they seem to do is grow. But if that is not enough to make a fetus alive, then we can't say that it makes a plant alive either.
Now a plant drinks water, but so does a fetus.

As for what you are saying:
Actually a fetus does breathe. It doesn't breathe air but it does breathe the amniotic fluid. Only after it is born does it breathe air. If the definition of life is confined to that which breathes air, then we must say that fish and everything else in the seas is not alive cause they don't breathe air.
Actually you don't really know if a fetus can feel anything. In fact there quite a few organism that can't feel anything. They rely on their other senses. But if the definition of life includes that they have to be able to feel, then those organisms can't be said to be alive either.
What I am saying is lets take the logic people use to say a fetus isn't life and apply it to the world at large. According the definitions that people trying to defend abortion use, there are alot of animals and plants out there that would not count as being alive.
The question in the abortion debate is not whether a fetus is life but rather is it a person? Things can be alive but that does not make them people. (I am not arguing that a fetus is not person btw, just making a point).

I mean really, why is there no support for anti-life?
I'm pro-abortion, which is quite different from pro-choice. Most pro-choice people feel that abortion is not a good thing, but that the right to choose is necessary because it's not a decision to be made by any but the individual. I, on the other hand, believe the world would be a better place if more women choose to have abortions. I don't believe in forcing anybody to abort or not abort, since I do believe strongly in choice, but I think it's wonderful to encourage women to view abortion as what it is: the most responsible possible choice in the event of an unplanned pregnancy.

I think he is attempting to distuinguish life from Life. Cells of my body are life. Animals are Life. People posting on this forum are Life (though one can wonder about some). Following this a foetus in the first trimester would be life with a small l.

Lets change the viewpoint: when is someone no longer alive, also known as death ?

When the heart stops beating ? An early foetus does not have a heart.
When he no longer breathes ? An early foetus does not breathe.
When he cannot feel anything anymore ? An early foetus can not feel anything.
When the cells of his body no longer divide ? Then we have buried quite a lot of people alive.
In our modern world, death is defined by brain death. Many living people do not have hearts that can beat on their own, nor lungs which can take in air on their own. Many living humans lack "feeling" on one or many levels. And, as you rightly pointed out, our cells continue to live and divide long after the point we designate as the death of the individual.

If we apply the same standard to fetuses as we do to all living human persons, then a fetus would not be alive until it registers the basic level of brain activity used as our standard for human life.

I mean really, why is there no support for anti-life?
There is; we just lock them up.

There is; we just lock them up.

Or elect them into office.

In our modern world, death is defined by brain death. Many living people do not have hearts that can beat on their own, nor lungs which can take in air on their own. Many living humans lack "feeling" on one or many levels. And, as you rightly pointed out, our cells continue to live and divide long after the point we designate as the death of the individual.

If we apply the same standard to fetuses as we do to all living human persons, then a fetus would not be alive until it registers the basic level of brain activity used as our standard for human life.
Bravo.

Life begins at 30.

I mean really, why is there no support for anti-life?I guess because...there's no-one so anti-population growth that he or she insists that all children be aborted to prevent the world's population from growing?

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I was questioning him cause he said a fetus doesn't eat (not true), it doesn't sex therefore its not alive.
So anything that doesn't engage in sex or is capable of engaging in sex is not alive?
He also said growth is not enough for it to be alive. But basically plants don't eat, they make their own energy, but they don't eat. All they seem to do is grow. But if that is not enough to make a fetus alive, then we can't say that it makes a plant alive either.
Now a plant drinks water, but so does a fetus.

As for what you are saying:
Actually a fetus does breathe. It doesn't breathe air but it does breathe the amniotic fluid. Only after it is born does it breathe air. If the definition of life is confined to that which breathes air, then we must say that fish and everything else in the seas is not alive cause they don't breathe air.
Actually you don't really know if a fetus can feel anything. In fact there quite a few organism that can't feel anything. They rely on their other senses. But if the definition of life includes that they have to be able to feel, then those organisms can't be said to be alive either.
What I am saying is lets take the logic people use to say a fetus isn't life and apply it to the world at large. According the definitions that people trying to defend abortion use, there are alot of animals and plants out there that would not count as being alive.
The question in the abortion debate is not whether a fetus is life but rather is it a person? Things can be alive but that does not make them people. (I am not arguing that a fetus is not person btw, just making a point).

Some of the arguments, perhaps, might not hold water, individually... but you ignore the context. I doubt if the concept that 'it isn't alive, it doesn't breathe' get's much airtime ON IT'S OWN.

Does a foetus feel? You say "we don't know"... but, of course, you are wrong. We DO know when it can feel - because we know HOW we feel pain - through nerve stimulation. Thus - there is a point at which we can assume that there is a complete enough network of nerves that 'pain' could be felt by a foetus... and that's sometime after the 20th week (week 20-22, conventionally). Before that point, there is only disconnected accumulations of tissue, growing TOWARDS being a neural system, but not yet 'there'.

With humans - the conventioanl argument for point of death, is the cessation of brain-activity. So - brain-dead = 'dead'.

This sets a possible precedent for the start of a 'human life' in the conceptus/foetus... you could argue that it is a 'life' when it becomes 'live', by the same measure.... such that 'brain-life' = 'life'.

Isn't "None of the Above" always an option?

Some of the arguments, perhaps, might not hold water, individually... but you ignore the context. I doubt if the concept that 'it isn't alive, it doesn't breathe' get's much airtime ON IT'S OWN.

Does a foetus feel? You say "we don't know"... but, of course, you are wrong. We DO know when it can feel - because we know HOW we feel pain - through nerve stimulation. Thus - there is a point at which we can assume that there is a complete enough network of nerves that 'pain' could be felt by a foetus... and that's sometime after the 20th week (week 20-22, conventionally). Before that point, there is only disconnected accumulations of tissue, growing TOWARDS being a neural system, but not yet 'there'.

With humans - the conventioanl argument for point of death, is the cessation of brain-activity. So - brain-dead = 'dead'.

This sets a possible precedent for the start of a 'human life' in the conceptus/foetus... you could argue that it is a 'life' when it becomes 'live', by the same measure.... such that 'brain-life' = 'life'.

Actually, a foetus feeling and responding to stimuli is much, much younger than that - more like 10-15 weeks. They respond to objects (such as a doctor correcting spinal bifidia) by gripping them - for that you need nerves. Whatever the age of "life", the current laws are way beyond it.

That is false. Not all pro-lifers are anti choice. It is not that simple. That is why we need four catagories and not just 2. I am tired of extremists trying to force people into two camps.
Most of us don't really want anything to do with your abortion war. All the prochoice and prolife people need to be dumped on an island where they can duke it out without everyone else being forced to put up with it.
Its just that the militants (both camps) are a bunch of loud mouthed hokeys who shout out the rest of us.

There are basically two factions... those that are pro-choice, and those that are anti-choice... who call themselves 'pro-life'.

If you are not bothered about people having a right to choose, then you aren't 'forced to put up with it', because it has no effect on you.... any more than any other political, religious or social factor.

Personally - the way I see it, if you are not 'pro-choice' then you are 'anti-choice' by default... since you do not believe that a woman has the right to decide.

There are two choices: pro or anti choice. Then, there is apathy...

Actually, a foetus feeling and responding to stimuli is much, much younger than that - more like 10-15 weeks. They respond to objects (such as a doctor correcting spinal bifidia) by gripping them - for that you need nerves. Whatever the age of "life", the current laws are way beyond it.

I didn't say there were no nerves - I said there was no 'complete network of nerves'... no 'neural system'.

What you are describing is 'reflex'. There is no central nervous system processor in place to 'handle' the stimuli... all there is, is 'reaction'.

That's like arguing that Chlorine can 'feel' Hydrogen.

its murder

Indeed, there is no conflict between pro-choice and pro-life. Many of us are, in fact, both.

its murder

Thanks for your time.

Only two words.... and you were still totally wrong. Well done.

Murder is the illegal removal of a human life by another human.

Abortion is legal (hence, not murder), and the 'human life' status of the conceptus is STILL open to debate... (hence, not murder).

Nice work... keep swinging.

Indeed, there is no conflict between pro-choice and pro-life. Many of us are, in fact, both.

Agreed... I am pro-foetal-life (I also advocate the death penalty, so I refuse to call myself 'pro-life), but far more pro-women's-right-to-choose.

Abortion is one of the things that I tend to not get involved in debating but I would like to say something.

The process of growth that begins at conception, while absolutely minute in the first weeks, does not end until the person in his/her 20s. By the reasoning for "Choice" a teenager is no more "human" or "alive" then a fetus, simply because he/she isn't fully developed. Birth is merely when the child is developed enough to survive in a open environment, however the child is FAR from being even remotely self-sufficient and it's internal structure is primitive at best.

That said, we need post birth abortion NOW PEOPLE! After all, if the mother feels that she is inept or simply not up to the task, it IS in the child’s best interest, right? How could you heartless bastards impose that kind of life on a child?

Abortion is one of the things that I tend to not get involved in debating but I would like to say something.

The process of growth that begins at conception, while absolutely minute in the first weeks, does not end until the person in his/her 20s. By the reasoning for "Choice" a teenager is no more "human" or "alive" then a fetus, simply because he/she isn't fully developed. Birth is merely when the child is developed enough to survive in a open environment, however the child is FAR from being even remotely self-sufficient and it's internal structure is primitive at best.

That said, we need post birth abortion NOW PEOPLE! After all, if the mother feels that she is inept or simply not up to the task, it IS in the child’s best interest, right? How could you heartless bastards impose that kind of life on a child?

You make it sound like 'conception' is an instant event, from which things progress forwards... which is, of course, inaccurate.

Conception is a process - thus, if we follow your logic... the half 'conceived' entity is as human as the teenager.... which theoretically makes the sperm the equivalent of the teen, also.

A teenager is no more 'human' than a foetus, or mare 'alive' than the conceptus - but he/she is a 'human life' - and it is that 'state' that has yet to be reasonable ascertained beyond doubt for the unborn at various stages.

Is the 39 week foetus a 'human life'? I'd say so... but what about the 39 hour conceptus? Fully a third of 'concepta' utterly fail to implant within the uterus... are they 'human lives', even as they are flushed down the toilet?

If you mow the lawn, are you a mass murderer? :eek:

The process of growth that begins at conception, while absolutely minute in the first weeks, does not end until the person in his/her 20s. By the reasoning for "Choice" a teenager is no more "human" or "alive" then a fetus, simply because he/she isn't fully developed.

Most pro-choice advocates realise this and as such do not use the "fully developed" or "being independant" argument. They base their arguments on the fact that the foetus does not have a neural net in the early stages of pregnancy and that it is therefor incapable of having experiences. Something that has no experiences cannot tell the difference between being alive and death, and as such killing t is not doing it any harm.

The way this argument is most often countered is that you are harming it by taking away the chance of getting experiences in the future. However, if one calls having no experiences a baseline - who is to say that all those experiences will be positive ? Unless one can prove that the potential is merely a fact, not something positive or negative. And as such taking it away is not the same as doing harm.

Denying the mother her right to make a choice the other hand harms her. This is why it is called pro-choice, and not pro-abortion.

Thanks for your time.

Only two words.... and you were still totally wrong. Well done.

Murder is the illegal removal of a human life by another human.

Abortion is legal (hence, not murder), and the 'human life' status of the conceptus is STILL open to debate... (hence, not murder).

Nice work... keep swinging.so taking the life of a baby is not murder what is it then

so taking the life of a baby is not murder what is it then
Killing … or tissue removal (depending on how you view it as human life)
Murder by definition means illegal so unless it is illegal it is not murder (also murder has to be taking of a HUMAN life)

so taking the life of a baby is not murder what is it then

Do you want me to help you with the large words?

You are attempting to appeal to sentiment with the use of the word 'baby'... which is a dubious debate tactic.

I have just clearly explained why 'abortion' is NOT murder.

Do you want me to help you with the large words?

You are attempting to appeal to sentiment with the use of the word 'baby'... which is a dubious debate tactic.

I have just clearly explained why 'abortion' is NOT murder.ok so ill make it plain for you. If you were a baby would you want to be aborted?

Killing … or tissue removal (depending on how you view it as human life)
Murder by definition means illegal so unless it is illegal it is not murder (also murder has to be taking of a HUMAN life)

Well, good morning!

How is Mr Thrust, this fine and shiny day?

You might be able to help me educate this individual... I have already clearly shown why abortion is NOT murder....

a Cancer is an parasitic organism, it is alive, so are the varieties of brain, blood and other parasites which occasionally infect a human body, is a fetus any different?

were a tapeworm egg to hatch and grow within your intestines, one could, after habouring it for a certain length of time remove it and such an organism would survive for about the same length of time as a newborn baby left on its own. Is there a difference?

of and for the religious arguement.... if an omnipotent 'god' didn't want us to have abortions, would it be possible?

ok so ill make it plain for you. If you were a baby would you want to be aborted?
If I was at that stage I would never know … no brain activity and all I really wouldn’t be a “person”

I have just clearly explained why 'abortion' is NOT murder.

There is also the fact that the term murder implies intent. I doubt you would find many women who have had abortions who agree that the embryo is a human person. Thus, there was no intent to kill a human person involved.

Well, good morning!

How is Mr Thrust, this fine and shiny day?

You might be able to help me educate this individual... I have already clearly shown why abortion is NOT murder....awnser the question yes or no

Well, good morning!

How is Mr Thrust, this fine and shiny day?

You might be able to help me educate this individual... I have already clearly shown why abortion is NOT murder....
I will try kind sir

If I was at that stage I would never know ? no brain activity and all I really wouldn?t be a ?person?yes or no?

awnser the question yes or no
Psst you post to quick he is actively posting in like 5 threads he may have just not had time to formulate an answer yet … or may have not yet seen your post yet
Give it time … he does not just ignore posts

a Cancer is an parasitic organism,

Cancer is not an organism. Of course, neither is an embryo, by conventional definitions. *shrug*

yes or no?
It would not be up to me … I guess whatever my mom thought was best for her.

Psst you post to quick he is actively posting in like 5 threads he may have just not had time to formulate an answer yet ? or may have not yet seen your post yet
Give it time ? he does not just ignore postsone of those yes or nos was to you

ok so ill make it plain for you. If you were a baby would you want to be aborted?
Once again, appealing to sentiment.

We do not abort 'babies'... since a baby is conventionally a post-birth entity.

It isn't that heard to use technical terms, and they are less 'loaded' with emotion... try calling the foetus a 'foetus'... or, in the early stages, how about 'conceptus'?

But - assuming you mean foetus... would I want to be aborted? No... I would have no opinion.. since I would have no ability to form a coherent thought pattern, nor enough memory or stimulus to base my thought on, IF I could cohesively cogitate.

A more important question is: if you were a teenage girl who had been raped by her father... and who was reminded of that action EVERY TIME she thought about what was germinating inside her.... would you want to keep it?

yes or no?

As baby: no.
As early foetus: an answer of yes or no would be meaningless. It is the same type of question as "can an omnipotent God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it".

one of the 10 comandments btw is thou shalt not kill and by abortion your killing the tissue of the baby

a Cancer is an parasitic organism, it is alive, so are the varieties of brain, blood and other parasites which occasionally infect a human body, is a fetus any different?

were a tapeworm egg to hatch and grow within your intestines, one could, after habouring it for a certain length of time remove it and such an organism would survive for about the same length of time as a newborn baby left on its own. Is there a difference?

of and for the religious arguement.... if an omnipotent 'god' didn't want us to have abortions, would it be possible?

All good arguments. Liazfaire may be one to watch. ;)

one of those yes or nos was to you
And I already answered it before you posted this

one of the 10 comandments btw is thou shalt not kill and by abortion your killing the tissue of the baby

Depends on your translation, friend... I read it as murder.... and abortion is not murder.

one of the 10 comandments btw is thou shalt not kill and by abortion your killing the tissue of the baby

When you scratch your arm, you are killing your own tissue. Is that murder?

one of the 10 comandments btw is thou shalt not kill and by abortion your killing the tissue of the baby
If you get your appendix removed you are killing the tissue of the appendix … your point?

one of the 10 comandments btw is thou shalt not kill and by abortion your killing the tissue of the baby

Everything you consume as food was also alive once. Every day your body loses a few million skincells which die. Medicines kill diseases.
In other words: killing is not per defintion wrong.

I now point you at my earlier post about "doing harm" and await your response.

As baby: no.
As early foetus: an answer of yes or no would be meaningless. It is the same type of question as "can an omnipotent God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it".that is a trick question but the awnser is it is not in his nature just as it is not in his nature to sin

ok so ill make it plain for you. If you were a baby would you want to be aborted?One can not abort a baby, it having already been born. One aborts a fetus. Fetuses (fetii?) do not think or experience volition at the stage of development one would normally be aborted.

that is a trick question but the awnser is it is not in his nature just as it is not in his nature to sin
That’s not an answer his disposition had nothing to do with his abilities

that is a trick question but the awnser is it is not in his nature just as it is not in his nature to sin

It is indeed a trick question. So is yours.
And now to answer it: "it is not in the foetus nature to want anything"

If you get your appendix removed you are killing the tissue of the appendix ? your point?so your saying that its ok to kill babys?

Psst you post to quick he is actively posting in like 5 threads he may have just not had time to formulate an answer yet … or may have not yet seen your post yet
Give it time … he does not just ignore posts

Why, thank you, kind sir... I was, in fact, engaged in about another 4 threads... :)

One can not abort a baby, it having already been born. One aborts a fetus. Fetuses (fetii?) do not think or experience volition at the stage of development one would normally be aborted.

In truth, fetuses are not often aborted. Most often, embryos are aborted. (the term fetus only coming into use after 8 weeks).

so your saying that its ok to kill babys?
No I am saying it is ok to remove fetuses Or embryos

Why, thank you, kind sir... I was, in fact, engaged in about another 4 threads... :)
I saw that :) hence saying it lol

In truth, fetuses are not often aborted. Most often, embryos are aborted. (the term fetus only coming into use after 8 weeks).Very true. But it is the term that's most commonly used. I'll try to be more accurate in the future... though with Ffc2 I don't think it would make any difference.

awnser the question yes or no

I have answered your 'question'...

You have yet to pay me the same courtesy:

"A more important question is: if you were a teenage girl who had been raped by her father... and who was reminded of that action EVERY TIME she thought about what was germinating inside her.... would you want to keep it? "

I saw that :) hence saying it lol

And yet... for all the impatience and champing at the bit.. once a question was posed to him (?), he(?) appears to be in no hurry to respond....

Actually.. I just realised the question Ffc2 asked touches the heart of the matter. So let me re-answer it:

ok so ill make it plain for you. If you were an embryo* would you want to be aborted?

Answer: I wouldn't care**. The only ones that would care are others, like for instance my mother. And since she is the only other that has a legitimate say in the matter (it being her body and all) it is her choice.

*this change is mine
** since I am incapable of caring.

one of the 10 comandments btw is thou shalt not kill and by abortion your killing the tissue of the baby

Well.. I did not vote for God. So why would he have the right to dictate laws to me ?

And yet... for all the impatience and champing at the bit.. once a question was posed to him (?), he(?) appears to be in no hurry to respond....
Yeah I see that

so your saying that its ok to kill babys?

No....BUT, we do kill adults every day in prisons and foreign wars, what makes babies so special? They have no-one to support, they SHOULD be the first to go. (personally i dont think murder should be condoned at any time, but tell that to the arabs we killed this week, they have wives and families. And they're not just embrios, they people) If were going to kill, why be so selective?

All good arguments. Liazfaire may be one to watch. ;)

awww thanks sweetie. nice to see people that are interested in philosophical questions without delving into the political realities (I usually post on a liberal politics forum)

anway, sorry about the cancer organism comment, I'm not an oncologist so not entirely sure what they qualify for but my point remians that its on the same level as a cancer, or a wart, or an embryo, just a growth upon or within a woman body.

anway, sorry about the cancer organism comment, I'm not an oncologist so not entirely sure what they qualify for but my point remians that its on the same level as a cancer, or a wart, or an embryo, just a growth upon or within a woman body.

Don't mind me. I work in biology, so I tend to get a bit pedantic about the way words are used. Your point stands regardless - I just feel the need to correct errors - it's kind of an OCD type of thing.

awww thanks sweetie.


Most welcome, I just call 'em as I see 'em.


nice to see people that are interested in philosophical questions without delving into the political realities (I usually post on a liberal politics forum)

anway, sorry about the cancer organism comment, I'm not an oncologist so not entirely sure what they qualify for but my point remians that its on the same level as a cancer, or a wart, or an embryo, just a growth upon or within a woman body.

We do 'political reality' here as well... :) but it's not unusual to find this 'kind' of thread on the forum....

About the cancer... until the scientific community can agree otherwise, the unwanted 'life' inside a woman's uterus might as well be a cancer.. it is, after all, unwanted cells reproducing within her body.

You don't want something in you? You have the right to remove it... although some would argue a special exception for the unwanted embryo.

Don't mind me. I work in biology, so I tend to get a bit pedantic about the way words are used. Your point stands regardless - I just feel the need to correct errors - it's kind of an OCD type of thing.

It's not just that though... one person misusing a phrase, not too serious...

But then people take that as a precedent, and you have 'phrase abuse' running rampant.

Honestly, the amount of times I've been told what I believe, because I am 'an Atheist'...

It's not just that though... one person misusing a phrase, not too serious...

But then people take that as a precedent, and you have 'phrase abuse' running rampant.

Honestly, the amount of times I've been told what I believe, because I am 'an Atheist'...
How about us supposed agnostics that get branded with the “too flaky to make up their mind” even though that is completely wrong :)

How about us supposed agnostics that get branded with the “too flaky to make up their mind” even though that is completely wrong :)

Exactly... you can have something that is completely fictional... and, if it just gets repeated enough time, it get's indistinguishable from fact...

Well, for a lot of people, anyway.

How about us supposed agnostics that get branded with the “too flaky to make up their mind” even though that is completely wrong :)

that one always annoys me... I have my own ideas because we have no other way of deciding, pending further evidence such as the second comming... falsification principle, I have yet to prove the existance of the christian 'god' false thus I must consider it a possibility, however by the same logical I must also consider the possibility of 'allah', 'magic', 'karma', 're-incarnation', 'astral travel', 'chi', 'the holy spirit' and a whole load of other stuff which I won't list for you all but I'm sure we're aware.

thus having failed to discover a 'truth' we are left to discover our own methods of living and find our own 'morals'. Having come to this conclusion it seems only logical to me that all people will one day arrive at the same conclusion, if they think about it enough.

and thus all people will one day become ideologically 'liberal' (in the true philosophical sense of the word obviously, without the politics), thus it will one day be possible for those who choose to believe in the 'evidence' presented in the bible, to live alongside those who choose to believe in the 'evidence' of a guiding 'gaian force' behind nature, and those who choose to believe purely in the quantifiable realities as they see them.

... ok so I'm a daydream believer, but wouldn't it be nice?

(ooops thread derailment occurred)

falsification principle, I have yet to prove the existance of the christian 'god' false thus I must consider it a possibility

Do note that the scientific method/falsifiable principle only works if something is testable - which the existence of God is not.

How about us supposed agnostics that get branded with the “too flaky to make up their mind” even though that is completely wrong :)

Well, there are some. LOL.

I was on the brink of declaring myself agnostic at one time - but it was more out of laziness than a true agnosticism. I wanted someone else to lay out the "TRUTH" for me, and I was dissapointed that it wasn't going to happen.

I have met agnostics who simply don't want to bother with thinking about the issue and I have met those who have thought about it and come to the conclusion that they simply cannot know. I have nothing but respect for the views of the latter.

Like most stereotypes, we are looking at a subset somehow defining the whole.

China has a somewhat anti life position right now. I say somewhat because infanticide is illegal, but abortions are encouraged.
Actually, in some cases where the one-child rule is breached, abortions are mandatory.

Do note that the scientific method/falsifiable principle only works if something is testable - which the existence of God is not.

or maybe we merely lack the ability to test it?

or maybe it is testable in some other way? perhaps through 'divine intervention' - would that not be proof of god's existance?

how could we be sure either way?

Do note that the scientific method/falsifiable principle only works if something is testable - which the existence of God is not.
Exactly hence my agnosticism (with a tint of atheism)

...thus it will one day be possible for those who choose to believe in the 'evidence' presented in the bible, to live alongside those who choose to believe in the 'evidence' of a guiding 'gaian force' behind nature, and those who choose to believe purely in the quantifiable realities as they see them.

... ok so I'm a daydream believer, but wouldn't it be nice?

(ooops thread derailment occurred)

Some do live like that... but, sadly, not all.

Well, there are some. LOL.

I was on the brink of declaring myself agnostic at one time - but it was more out of laziness than a true agnosticism. I wanted someone else to lay out the "TRUTH" for me, and I was dissapointed that it wasn't going to happen.

I have met agnostics who simply don't want to bother with thinking about the issue and I have met those who have thought about it and come to the conclusion that they simply cannot know. I have nothing but respect for the views of the latter.

Like most stereotypes, we are looking at a subset somehow defining the whole.

Since we've already mangled this thread almost beyond recognition... I might as well inch it just a little further round the loop.... :D

So - would you say you were a 'Gnostic' Christian?

Exactly hence my agnosticism (with a tint of atheism)

I think, there is the difference.

You believe it impossible to know for sure, but you lean a little further towards the "maybe not" scenario... and there are your counterparts who lean a little further towards the "huh, you never know" scenario...

This, I think - is the 'proper' state for Agnosticism... about CERTAINTY - not about 'belief'.

Those who really cannot decide either way are the ones setting the 'arena' for Agnosticism as a sort of middle ground... but, it's just because they are undecided... not because they are Agnostic.

Well, that's my thought on it, anyway. :)

or maybe we merely lack the ability to test it?

Unfortunately no. The scientific method is based on the idea one should *disprove* hypostheses, or in other words: to show that a given theory is wrong. Failure to do so strengthens the faith in the hypothesis; though of course does not conclusively proof it is completely right. Which is why science is so filled with things called "theories" instead of "certainties". A scientific theory however has been proven to be quite hard to disprove.

God by definition does not obey the laws of physics. Every test devised to prove he does not exist will therefor not be conclusive - "God did not want this to work" would be a valid argument. Therefor religion and science are two seperate things.

Do note that this does NOT make any statement on the issue if God exists or not. It just says religion/faith and science are two different things

or maybe it is testable in some other way? perhaps through 'divine intervention' - would that not be proof of god's existance?

It would be - but not through the falsifiable principle ;)

I think, there is the difference.

You believe it impossible to know for sure, but you lean a little further towards the "maybe not" scenario... and there are your counterparts who lean a little further towards the "huh, you never know" scenario...

This, I think - is the 'proper' state for Agnosticism... about CERTAINTY - not about 'belief'.

Those who really cannot decide either way are the ones setting the 'arena' for Agnosticism as a sort of middle ground... but, it's just because they are undecided... not because they are Agnostic.

Well, that's my thought on it, anyway. :)
Exactly Agnosticism is ONLY about your opinion on weather god can be proven or not … it is a separate beast from your belief in a deity or not

You can be an Agnostic Deist as well … believe in god but do not know if he is provable (though there are some issues when you get too specific with your belief because we may not be able to disprove god but it is certainly within the realm of possibility to disprove certain acts attributed to him)

Unfortunately no. The scientific method is based on the idea one should *disprove* hypostheses, or in other words: to show that a given theory is wrong. Failure to do so strengthens the faith in the hypothesis; though of course does not conclusively proof it is completely right. Which is why science is so filled with things called "theories" instead of "certainties". A scientific theory however has been proven to be quite hard to disprove.

Ok then take

Hypothesis = God exists

disprove.

if one cannot disprove the hypothesis then is it a strong theory?

as you have said god would, by definition as an omnipotent being (dealing only with christian god in this instance obviously, although theological questions remain as to whether the christian god, using only doctrine could indeed be said to be omnipotent...), exist beyond the laws of physics, but would the be some other way to test such an existance that we are as yet ignorant of?

this is just a twist of the idea, I know, but it is easy from an atheist/agnostic point of view to ask a christian to prove the existance of God, but far harder when we are asked to make our own arguement on the matter.

if one cannot disprove the hypothesis then is it a strong theory?

Only if you can actually *test* it.

Lets say your hypothesis is "John and Peter are both brilliant kids". You decide to test it by giving them some IQ tests. If they fail, the hypothesis is disproven.

John makes the tests perfectly. Though this does not proof he is brilliant (he could also be a good cheater for instance), it does strengthen the hypothesis.

Peter refuses to make the tests. You can therefor not make a statement on his intellect.

God is like Peter: not taking the test; and therefor not getting a grade.

and if they both took the test with an 'inconclusive' response

and we later found the test to be faulty?

I find myself being an 'anti'. I'm just anti-harm, in that if someone has an abortion because of a child with a bad leg or even something as bloody trivial as a cleft pallete, which in the U.K. counts as a major physical disability, i get annoyed, but if you don't want to have to raise a child with downs or cerebral paulsey then it's ok according to my morals.

I also dislike the idea that everyone should carry the child to term and get it put into care, when (call me evil for this) the cost of keeping someone who needs 24-hour care all their life in a home is massive and is detracting money from where we need it. Yes, hate me, but wonderful ideals about everyone being happy don't always work, as examples show.
Also, a friend of mine confided to me that she'd become pregnant (and showed me the slight bump) to get it off her chest - she had an abortion in secret because if it'd been found out that she was pregnant out her family would've hated her and the school would've ridiculed her - she'd have been ostracised from her clique and basically an outcast.

So i guess that like with many things, I sit on the fence here. Woohoo for me.

and if they both took the test with an 'inconclusive' response

Then another test needs to be devised. Preferably taking into account why the previous one was inconclusive.

and we later found the test to be faulty?

Then the result of the test would be invalidated. This happens quite often in fact.
The problem with God however is that we cannot devise a test he could not cheat at - even if he took it at all ;)

About ten percent of these posts are on-topic. The rest are talking about abortion and whatnot? What is this? I thought this was a thread to talk about anti-life...

About ten percent of these posts are on-topic. The rest are talking about abortion and whatnot? What is this? I thought this was a thread to talk about anti-life...

Define the position of anti-life then - preferably by an edit in the first post. The impression the name gives me is that a true anti-lifer would either commit suicide immediately, attempt genocide or is against reproduction. No doubt that is incorrect.

Define the position of anti-life then - preferably by an edit in the first post. The impression the name gives me is that a true anti-lifer would either commit suicide immediately, attempt genocide or is against reproduction. No doubt that is incorrect.

Pro-suicide, Pro-genocide, Anti-reproduction.

Pro-suicide, Pro-genocide, Anti-reproduction.

Of all life, or just human life ?

Of all life, or just human life ?

I cant speak for all Anti-lifers, but all life for me. Especially human though.

I cant speak for all Anti-lifers, but all life for me. Especially human though.

Intruiging. I can understand being anti-human; but what purpose would exterminating *all* life serve ? Arguably there is no purpose to the existence of life either (religious people will disagree) - but since Life is a fact and exterminating it requires effort... what would the motivation be ?

..... a true anti-lifer would either commit suicide immediately, attempt genocide or is against reproduction. No doubt that is incorrect.

Not entireley incorrect, im very anti-life,(human life really, but if i have to kill bunnies to get the humans...well, ok.) I would definatelly commit suicide, but not untill I checked and double checked that I had killed EVERYONE else first.

Not entireley incorrect, im very anti-life,(human life really, but if i have to kill bunnies to get the humans...well, ok.) I would definatelly commit suicide, but not untill I checked and double checked that I had killed EVERYONE else first.

I can understand that position - but i'm still wondering what the use of whiping out all life is, since that is what Chellis wants. Very roughly we now have three positions:

Biological life has an intrinsic positive value: pro-life
Biological life is a neutral fact (persons matter): pro-choice
Biological life has an intrinsic negative value: anti-life

The argument used to ascribe a positive value is often based around the concept of a soul. But what is the reason for a negative value ? Do you consider potential misery more important than potential happyness for instance ?

I can understand that position - but i'm still wondering what the use of whiping out all life is, since that is what Chellis wants. Very roughly we now have three positions:

Biological life has an intrinsic positive value: pro-life
Biological life is a neutral fact (persons matter): pro-choice
Biological life has an intrinsic negative value: anti-life

The argument used to ascribe a positive value is often based around the concept of a soul. But what is the reason for a negative value ? Do you consider potential misery more important than potential happyness for instance ?

Your assumption is incorrect: Pro-Choice does not say that biological life is neutral, at all.

Many people are EXPRESSLY 'pro-life' - in as much as they wish no harm to the embryo... but they believe that it is not reasonable to LEGISLATE that 'morality' on others. Thus, you could be 'pro-life' AND pro-choice.

This is one reason why I do not use the term 'pro-life' to describe those who fight against abortion rights. They are not the only people who are 'pro-life'... they are just anti-abortion.

And, of course... many supposed 'pro-life' supporters have no qualms about the death penalty, for example... so they are only 'pro-embryo-life'.


Sorry - but your post is wrong, on at least TWO of the THREE points.

Your assumption is incorrect: Pro-Choice does not say that biological life is neutral, at all.

Eeehm... where does it require an intrinsic value then ? You can assume it has value, but it is not relevant for the arguments I use to support it...

Many people are EXPRESSLY 'pro-life' - in as much as they wish no harm to the embryo... but they believe that it is not reasonable to LEGISLATE that 'morality' on others. Thus, you could be 'pro-life' AND pro-choice.

True - but I am restricting myself here, as I supposed was the intent of the original poster. As such, assuming life has value is *essential* for the pro-life side.

Sorry - but your post is wrong, on at least TWO of the THREE points.

But you have not yet provided arguments for at least one of those two. Somewhat unlike you ;)

Eeehm... where does it require an intrinsic value then ? You can assume it has value, but it is not relevant for the arguments I use to support it...


Because your assumption was that pro-choice is synonymous with pro-abortion. Dempublicents is an example of a poster on this forum who is fiercely 'pro-life'... even 'anti-abortion'... but who describes herself as pro-choice, because she doesn't feel comfortable about imposing that personal viewpoint on others.

Pro-Choice is ALL about 'choice'. It makes NO judgement about intrinsic value of life, at all.

So "Biological life is a neutral fact (persons matter): pro-choice" is misleading and erroneous... but not your fault, so much... we would be better served actually talking about Pro-Choice versus Anti-Choice.... but the Anti-Choice side likes to muddy the waters, by pretending their platform is 'life'.


True - but I am restricting myself here, as I supposed was the intent of the original poster. As such, assuming life has value is *essential* for the pro-life side.


BUt, the intention of the original poster is also misguided. There are but two powers at play, the pro- and anti- 'choice' factions - under various names. Ayone who has no opinion of choice, is actually not IN the debate - and that is the flaw in the original poster's argument.

Further - as I pointed out, someone calling themselves 'pro-life' may still support war, or death penalties, for example. That person thus sees 'value' in life ONLY when it is convenient. The wholen 'pro-life' platform is flawed.


But you have not yet provided arguments for at least one of those two. Somewhat unlike you ;)

Erm... thankyou... I think. :)

Actually, in some cases where the one-child rule is breached, abortions are mandatory.

As I understand it, those who have extra children face benifit reductions, rather than the prospect of actually being dragged into a clinic and subject to forced abortion.

I realize that this is a form of coersion, but if republicans can claim, with a straight face in this day and age, that driver's licenses and pre-employment drug tests aren't mandatory because you don't have to have a car or job then it's reasonable to claim that China "encourages" rather than forces abortions.

As I understand it, those who have extra children face benifit reductions, rather than the prospect of actually being dragged into a clinic and subject to forced abortion.

I realize that this is a form of coersion, but if republicans can claim, with a straight face in this day and age, that driver's licenses and pre-employment drug tests aren't mandatory because you don't have to have a car or job then it's reasonable to claim that China "encourages" rather than forces abortions.
Well the car I see but the drug test depends on the employer … I have never had to take one (just pointing that out)

I have had to take the Mantox shot to find out if I have TB but that’s about all besides the background check due to sensitive information that I work with

I mean really, why is there no support for anti-life?

I'm actually anti-life... or, as I usually refer to it, Pro-Death.

Basically, the way I see it is that on the three big "death"-related issues (abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment), I always lean towards the "death" option.

I'm Pro-Choice (or, more precisely, anti-anti-abortion), I'm for assisted suicide, and I firmly believe that the death penalty would be more of a deterrent if the process were streamlined (having someone spend 20-30 years on Death Row more or less removes ANY effectiveness the death penalty would otherwise have).

I'm also a fan of the idea that people who die through their own stupidity should forfeit any rights they might have had - so that their family doesn't wind up suing a mostly innocent victim for it. Case in point: when two men who cut a hole in a fence marked "Absolutely No Trespassing", sneak out onto a dock at night (because if it were daytime, someone might see them), then BOTH dive head-first into shallow water - then sue the state of New York for not posting "No Diving" signs ON THE PIER THEY WEREN'T LEGALLY SUPPOSED TO BE ON IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I'm actually anti-life... or, as I usually refer to it, Pro-Death.

Basically, the way I see it is that on the three big "death"-related issues (abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment), I always lean towards the "death" option.

Pretty much the opposite of me, then! Although I'm a little hazy on capital punishment, and not exactly a howling bigot on euthanasia.