NationStates Jolt Archive


Arguements against abortion.

Pages : [1] 2 3
New Naliitr
03-11-2006, 16:08
You know how pro-abortion ralliers always hold up signs like "Give me a choice." and "Hands off my body!"?

Well let me ask you this.

Does the fetus have a choice of whether or not he's aborted?

No.

So is there really any choice there?

And what about keeping hands off of the fetus' body?

You know, my science teacher recently told me that there are two most basic needs that every living organism in the universe has.

1. To live

2. To reproduce

So by allowing abortion, we are essentially screwing the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe.

Short, sweet, but get's the message across.
Cabra West
03-11-2006, 16:10
Right.
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.

That arguments has been debunked so many times, it's really getting kind of boring now.
Hannah Thomas
03-11-2006, 16:12
Deciding on whether abortion is right or wrong depends on when an individual believes the foetus becomes a human being ... when its heart beats or when it breathes on its own. There will never be a definite answer so the debate continues!
Ifreann
03-11-2006, 16:12
Right.
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.

That arguments has been debunked so many times, it's really getting kind of boring now.

It's the circle of debate. No matter how many times you debate something to death someone will always bring it back up.
New Naliitr
03-11-2006, 16:13
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.

Actually, that sounds like quite a good idea. If someone needs a kidney, and there are none currently avaliable, and it looks like one won't be avaliable for a while, why not make a compulsory kidney donation? Compensation should be provided, of course.

EDIT: But this is for a seperate thread.
The Aeson
03-11-2006, 16:13
Clearly we need to start arming fetus's so they can resist this murder. FLF FTW!
Sheni
03-11-2006, 16:14
You know how pro-abortion ralliers always hold up signs like "Give me a choice." and "Hands off my body!"?

Well let me ask you this.

Does the fetus have a choice of whether or not he's aborted?

No.

So is there really any choice there?

And what about keeping hands off of the fetus' body?

You know, my science teacher recently told me that there are two most basic needs that every living organism in the universe has.

1. To live

2. To reproduce

So by allowing abortion, we are essentially screwing the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe.

Short, sweet, but get's the message across.

Consider that it is considered completely moral to remove a ringworm.
This is because the human's right to not have a parasite in it's body overides the right of the ringworm to not get killed.
And "the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe" contradicts itself all the time when dealing with more then one species:
The wildebeast wants to not get eaten by the lion, because it dies otherwise.
The lion wants to eat the wildebeast, because it dies from starvation otherwise.
One being's rights have to get trampled on to protect the other's.
New Naliitr
03-11-2006, 16:16
Consider that it is considered completely moral to remove a ringworm.
This is because the human's right to not have a parasite in it's body overides the right of the ringworm to not get killed.
And "the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe" contradicts itself all the time when dealing with more then one species:
The wildebeast wants to not get eaten by the lion, because it dies otherwise.
The lion wants to eat the wildebeast, because it dies from starvation otherwise.
One being's rights have to get trampled on to protect the other's.

But of the creature can survive while allowing the other creature to survive, why should we make it to where the weaker creature can die?

(Note: If the pregnancy endangers the woman, I'm all for abortion. Otherwise, no.)
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:18
Has it really been a whole 15 minutes since your last thread Ritlina?
Ifreann
03-11-2006, 16:19
But of the creature can survive while allowing the other creature to survive, why should we make it to where the weaker creature can die?

(Note: If the pregnancy endangers the woman, I'm all for abortion. Otherwise, no.)

Your English is unusually terrible. Did you mean :
But if the creature can survive while allowing the other creature to survive, why should we kill the weaker creature?
?
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 16:20
Right.
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.

That arguments has been debunked so many times, it's really getting kind of boring now.

Sure. If a conjoined twin is using your liver with you, you can't exactly just 'cut them off’ and pretend like they didn’t have a right to it as well.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:20
You know how pro-abortion ralliers always hold up signs like "Give me a choice." and "Hands off my body!"?

Well let me ask you this.

Does the fetus have a choice of whether or not he's aborted?

No.

So is there really any choice there?

And what about keeping hands off of the fetus' body?

You know, my science teacher recently told me that there are two most basic needs that every living organism in the universe has.

1. To live

2. To reproduce

So by allowing abortion, we are essentially screwing the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe.

Short, sweet, but get's the message across.
Your right to live does not trump another human being's right to bodily autonomy. You do not have the right to sustain your life by harvesting the tissues or organs of another human against their wishes.

If you wish to grant fetuses rights which no born human being has, then make that argument. If you believe that women lose their most fundamental human rights when they become pregnant, make that argument. But kindly do not pretend that it has the least thing to do with a fetus' "choices." That is simply another lazy attempt to co-opt the language of feminism and choice to support anti-woman, anti-choice propaganda.
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 16:22
Your right to live does not trump another human being's right to bodily autonomy. You do not have the right to sustain your life by harvesting the tissues or organs of another human against their wishes.

If you wish to grant fetuses rights which no born human being has, then make that argument. If you believe that women lose their most fundamental human rights when they become pregnant, make that argument. But kindly do not pretend that it has the least thing to do with a fetus' "choices." That is simply another lazy attempt to co-opt the language of feminism and choice to support anti-woman, anti-choice propaganda.

Again, conjoined twins have those rights (to use equally, not harvest). As they should.
Free Randomers
03-11-2006, 16:22
To Live - sure.

Tell us oh creator - when does life begin?
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 16:24
Consider that it is considered completely moral to remove a ringworm.
This is because the human's right to not have a parasite in it's body overides the right of the ringworm to not get killed.
And "the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe" contradicts itself all the time when dealing with more then one species:
The wildebeast wants to not get eaten by the lion, because it dies otherwise.
The lion wants to eat the wildebeast, because it dies from starvation otherwise.
One being's rights have to get trampled on to protect the other's.

What are you saying? It's okay to trample the rights of the poor if they get in our way? I thought this topic was about abortion... :eek:
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:25
I'm suprised we're still debating this, without answering one of the fundamental question. When does life begin? Once we establish this, then we can debate the morality of abortions.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:25
Does the fetus have a choice of whether or not he's aborted?
90% of all abortions occur to embryos, not fetuses.
An embryo is essentially a non-entity as far as life is concerned, therefore it has no ability to choose and if aborted, never will.

And what about keeping hands off of the fetus' body?
Tell you what, hypothetical embryo that is hypothetically in my uterus, if you can survive outside of my uterus, then fine, gtfo and go on your merry way 'cause your'e not welcome here.

You know, my science teacher recently told me that there are two most basic needs that every living organism in the universe has.

1. To live

2. To reproduce

So by allowing abortion, we are essentially screwing the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe.
1. Those are not the needs of life. Either your science teacher sucks or you're doing poorly in that class.
2. Those may not be a big part of life on Omicron Persei 8, what works for life on earth doesn't necessarily work for life elsewhere.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:26
I'm suprised we're still debating this, without answering one of the fundamental question. When does life begin? Once we establish this, then we can debate the morality of abortions.
Not really.

The way I see it, we determined that slavery was illegal a long time ago. Forcing a woman to be a slave to an embryo because she has a uterus should likewise be illegal.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:27
I'm suprised we're still debating this, without answering one of the fundamental question. When does life begin? Once we establish this, then we can debate the morality of abortions.
That "fundamental question" is both irrelevant and easy to answer.

Life doesn't "begin" at any point. It's called "the Human Life Cycle" for a reason. There is no point at which non-living or non-human material magically becomes living and human. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. A zygote is alive. A fetus is alive. A baby is alive. Etc.

None of this matters. No living human being has the right to use my body against my wishes. No born human being has the right to use my organs and tissues to sustain their life, unless I give my consent. Even if a fetus is given the same legal status as a born human person, it still does not have the right to use my body any longer than I choose to allow it to do so.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:29
Not really.

The way I see it, we determined that slavery was illegal a long time ago. Forcing a woman to be a slave to an embryo because she has a uterus should likewise be illegal.

Not entirelly. The blacks were entered into slavery against their own will, however, unless the woman has been raped, or incest, the woman consented to sex, so she's not being held hostage when she becomes pregant due to her actions. Now rape or incest, that is another story.
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 16:29
I'm suprised we're still debating this, without answering one of the fundamental question. When does life begin? Once we establish this, then we can debate the morality of abortions.


I read that life began about 3.5 billion years ago. It hasn't stopped yet, it just keep spawning into new bodies to keep going when the old bodies get old and stop working. So far so good. Life does not come from death (except for that first time 3.5 billion years ago which we seem to be having some problem figuring out). Other than that one time life has never been known to spontaneously development on its own as far as I know.

...it's all "life" post sniped ...

D'oh, you beat me to it.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:30
Not entirelly. The blacks were entered into slavery against their own will, however, unless the woman has been raped, or incest, the woman consented to sex, so she's not being held hostage when she becomes pregant due to her actions. Now rape or incest, that is another story.
The woman consented to sex, she did not consent to pregnancy.

If I give permission for my friend Bob to come in my house and I come home one day to find that he has Joe in the back door, I have every right to kick Joe out of my house. Analogously, if I choose to have sex with Bob and an embryo (Joe) starts to form in my uterus, I have every right to kick the embryo out.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:30
That "fundamental question" is both irrelevant and easy to answer.

Life doesn't "begin" at any point. It's called "the Human Life Cycle" for a reason. There is no point at which non-living or non-human material magically becomes living and human. A sperm is alive. An egg is alive. A zygote is alive. A fetus is alive. A baby is alive. Etc.

None of this matters. No living human being has the right to use my body against my wishes. No born human being has the right to use my organs and tissues to sustain their life, unless I give my consent. Even if a fetus is given the same legal status as a born human person, it still does not have the right to use my body any longer than I choose to allow it to do so.

If you have consent sex with a male, there was no rape or incest involved, and knowing what the outcome of that sex could be, then doesn't that null and void the whole "I HAVE TO GIVE THE PARASITE MY PERMISSION OMGHFF!!!!!111"
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:31
Not entirelly. The blacks were entered into slavery against their own will, however, unless the woman has been raped, or incest, the woman consented to sex, so she's not being held hostage when she becomes pregant due to her actions. Now rape or incest, that is another story.
Consent to sex is not consent to remain pregnant. Consent to sex is not consent to child birth. Consent to sex is not consent to have your right to medical treatment taken away from you.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:32
The woman consented to sex, she did not consent to pregnancy.

If I give permission for my friend Bob to come in my house and I come home one day to find that he has Joe in the back door, I have every right to kick Joe out of my house.

Yes, but comon, who doesn't know the possible outcome that sex could have? I mean if you think you can have sex, without the possiblity of becoming pregant, then you're a dumbass.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:33
If you have consent sex with a male, there was no rape or incest involved, and knowing what the outcome of that sex could be, then doesn't that null and void the whole "I HAVE TO GIVE THE PARASITE MY PERMISSION OMGHFF!!!!!111"
I know the outcome may be that I become pregnant. I consent to deal with that possibility when I consent to sex. So?

That's like how when I get behind the wheel of a car I must accept that it is possible I will get into an accident. I know there's a chance that, no matter how careful I am, I might get in an accident. Does this mean that I have given up my right to get medical care if I'm in an accident? Does it mean that I "consent" to being hit by a drunk driver?
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:33
If you have consent sex with a male, there was no rape or incest involved, and knowing what the outcome of that sex could be, then doesn't that null and void the whole "I HAVE TO GIVE THE PARASITE MY PERMISSION OMGHFF!!!!!111"
So if you go to a tropical country fully knowing that you could contract a parasite by drinking the water. And you drink the water and contract a parasite, you lose all right to medical treatment for your parasite?
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:33
Bwahaha...Wilgrove is so screwed. *eats popcorn*
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:34
Yes, but comon, who doesn't know the possible outcome that sex could have? I mean if you think you can have sex, without the possiblity of becoming pregant, then you're a dumbass.
Again, I don't know how to explain this more simply:

Consenting to sex does not equal consenting to remain pregnant and then give birth. Yes, pregnancy is one possible consequence of sex. And one way of dealing with that consequence is abortion. Childbirth is not the inevitable result of pregnancy. Indeed, the majority of fertilizations and pregnancies do not result in childbirth.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:36
Yes, but comon, who doesn't know the possible outcome that sex could have? I mean if you think you can have sex, without the possiblity of becoming pregant, then you're a dumbass.
Yes, and if I let a friend into my house I accept the possible outcome that he may bring one of his friends around and I accept the consequences of having to kick him the fuck out of my house.

Seriously, if you want to invent a procedure to let me take my unwanted embryo out of my uterus and gestate it in a tank to be adopted by a childless couple then by all means do so, I'm all for passing on my genes with minimal effort. However, as it is, it's my uterus this thing is occupying (hypothetically of course) and I get to choose whether I want it there or not.

Once again, consent to sex is not the same as consent to pregnancy.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:36
I know the outcome may be that I become pregnant. I consent to deal with that possibility when I consent to sex. So?

That's like how when I get behind the wheel of a car I must accept that it is possible I will get into an accident. I know there's a chance that, no matter how careful I am, I might get in an accident. Does this mean that I have given up my right to get medical care if I'm in an accident? Does it mean that I "consent" to being hit by a drunk driver?

Wouldn't the whole accident scenario (if it wasn't your fault) really fit in more with the whole rape/incest? The analogy doesn't really work here, sorry. Let's face it, if you think you're mature enough to deal with sex, then you should be mature enough to deal with the outcome of sex.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 16:36
So if you go to a tropical country fully knowing that you could contract a parasite by drinking the water. And you drink the water and contract a parasite, you lose all right to medical treatment for your parasite?

No, but no one would claim you're not responsible for your condition. Medicine can correct stupidy when dealing with a 'parasite'; it should not correct stupidy when dealing with a human life, because you can't be bothered to take responsibilty for you actions.

You're like the guy who chops down a tree outside his house and then tries to get compensation from the manufacturer of the saw because the tree falls on his house.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:37
So if you go to a tropical country fully knowing that you could contract a parasite by drinking the water. And you drink the water and contract a parasite, you lose all right to medical treatment for your parasite?

That why you boil the freaking water, and that why you wear condoms, and take the pill, but even those fail about 2% of the time.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:37
No, but no one would claim you're not responsible for your condition. Medicine can correct stupidy when dealing with a 'parasite'; it should not correct stupidy when dealing with a human life, because you can't be bothered to take responsibilty for you actions.

You're like the guy who chops down a tree outside his house and then tries to get compensation from the manufacturer of the saw because the tree falls on his house.

...Wait, Is the saw the fetus? Or is it the company? Is the house his body, or the tree? Would his lawyer be the doctor performing the abortion?
Nevered
03-11-2006, 16:38
The argument basically boils down to: When does life begin?

since nobody has the same answer to that question, a more practical question is: Who has the right to decide when in the pregnancy does life begin?

that question has two answers: Either the individuals decide when life begins in their own cases, or the government decides when life begins for everybody.

The solution, then, couldn't be simpler.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:38
Bwahaha...Wilgrove is so screwed. *eats popcorn*

and thank you for contributing nothing of value to this thread. :rolleyes:
Delawen
03-11-2006, 16:38
And what about the rights of the poor girl who has been rapped and didn't want to be pregnant? She will have to stop studying, she will have changes in her body she didn't want (changes that will last forever), she will have nine months of agony, she will have to take care of a baby she didn't want to have...

Sometimes, abortion is a good decision.
Free Randomers
03-11-2006, 16:38
Not really.

The way I see it, we determined that slavery was illegal a long time ago. Forcing a woman to be a slave to an embryo because she has a uterus should likewise be illegal.

Not quite.

Once the baby/foetus is alive there is a responsibility to it.

A mother is not allowed to dump a born baby in a bin just because she does not want to feed it. She is also not allowed to break it's head open with a hammer halfway through childbirth.

I find the baby=parasite/woman=machine arguement disturbing as it degrades both all babies everywhere AND it degredes women - viewing them as baby machines.

(I'm Pro Choice btw.)
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:39
Wouldn't the whole accident scenario (if it wasn't your fault) really fit in more with the whole rape/incest? The analogy doesn't really work here, sorry. Let's face it, if you think you're mature enough to deal with sex, then you should be mature enough to deal with the outcome of sex.

I imagine abortions deal with it quite nicely.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:39
The argument basically boils down to: When does life begin?

since nobody has the same answer to that question, a more practical question is: Who has the right to decide when in the pregnancy does life begin?

that question has two answers: Either the individuals decide when life begins in their own cases, or the government decides when life begins for everybody.

The solution, then, couldn't be simpler.

I think the people should decide, not the government. God knows the government has enough powers as it is.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 16:39
...Wait, Is the saw the fetus? Or is it the company? Is the house his body, or the tree? Would his lawyer be the doctor performing the abortion?

:rolleyes: It's a poor analogy for a failure to take personal responsibility for your own actions. You're welcome to come up with a better one if you so desire.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:39
Not quite.

Once the baby is alive there is a responsibility to it.

A mother is not allowed to dump a born baby in a bin just because she does not want to feed it. She is also not allowed to break it's head open with a hammer halfway through childbirth.

Well, she is allowed to leave it outside a hospital or something.
Free Randomers
03-11-2006, 16:40
Well, she is allowed to leave it outside a hospital or something.

Pretty sure that's illegal.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:40
:rolleyes: It's a poor analogy for a failure to take personal responsibility for your own actions. You're welcome to come up with a better one if you so desire.

Nah, can't be arsed. *eats popcorn*
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:40
No, but no one would claim you're not responsible for your condition. Medicine can correct stupidy when dealing with a 'parasite'; it should not correct stupidy when dealing with a human life, because you can't be bothered to take responsibilty for you actions.
1. Having protected sex with contraceptives that fail isn't stupidity.
2. Medicine does correct stupidity, wuite fucking often.
3. We're not talking about a human life, we are talking about a potential one.
4. Having an abortion is taking responsability for one's actions.

You're like the guy who chops down a tree outside his house and then tries to get compensation from the manufacturer of the saw because the tree falls on his house.
No, you're like the guy who upon seeing that man with the tree on his house will not allow him to remove it and hire someone to preform repairs because he must "take responsability" for his actions.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:41
Wouldn't the whole accident scenario (if it wasn't your fault) really fit in more with the whole rape/incest?

Why wouldn't it fit with consentual sex? Nobody is forcing me to get in the car, just like nobody is forcing me to have sex. I consent to drive, just as I consent to sex. However, that does not mean that I am giving up my right to seek medical care in the event that something happens to me as a result of driving or having sex.


The analogy doesn't really work here, sorry. Let's face it, if you think you're mature enough to deal with sex, then you should be mature enough to deal with the outcome of sex.
I am mature enough to deal with the outcomes of sex. If I become pregnant, I will terminate the pregnancy. That is how I choose to deal with it. You may not agree with my choice, but that does not change the fact that I am dealing with the consequences of my actions.

Some people believe it is morally wrong to choose to have blood tranfusions. I happen to believe it's okay to have blood transfusions. If I get in an accident and need a blood transfusion, I will want one. Others may think this is a bad choice, but that doesn't change the fact that I am dealing with my situation.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:41
Pretty sure that's illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_haven_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:41
I imagine abortions deal with it quite nicely.

So basically, you people think that abortion should be used to escape responsibility of your actions. Wow, that's mature. :rolleyes:
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:42
That why you boil the freaking water, and that why you wear condoms, and take the pill, but even those fail about 2% of the time.
Yes, and when you boil the water and still get a parasite, are you denied medical attention?

If I have a guy wear a condom and still get pregnant, should the same situation not apply?
Nevered
03-11-2006, 16:42
I think the people should decide, not the government. God knows the government has enough powers as it is.

And thus is the pro-choice movement born.

I am resolutely Pro-choice.

If I ever had to make that choice, I would choose to keep the child, but I am not so arrogant as to force that decision on others.
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 16:42
Wouldn't the whole accident scenario (if it wasn't your fault) really fit in more with the whole rape/incest? The analogy doesn't really work here, sorry. Let's face it, if you think you're mature enough to deal with sex, then you should be mature enough to deal with the outcome of sex.

So you would argue that if someone smokes and then get cnacer then they should be denied treatment? After all they should be mature enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 16:43
...
None of this matters. No living human being has the right to use my body against my wishes. No born human being has the right to use my organs and tissues to sustain their life, unless I give my consent. Even if a fetus is given the same legal status as a born human person, it still does not have the right to use my body any longer than I choose to allow it to do so.

Of course it has the right to use your body IF it is a person. they don't flip a coin and disconnect one of two conjoined twins, saving one and killing the other, simply because one doesn't want to share anymore...
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:44
So you would argue that if someone smokes and then get cnacer then they should be denied treatment? After all they should be mature enough to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Eh why not.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 16:44
1. Having protected sex with contraceptives that fail isn't stupidity.
No, it is a calculated risk. And, like all calculated risks, you must live with the consequences if the bet doesn't pay off.
2. Medicine does correct stupidity, wuite fucking often.
Like I said, it can, but does not kill to correct stupidity. I don't know what 'wuite' means.
3. We're not talking about a human life, we are talking about a potential one.
Or, "I have taken the only objective point for the start of life, conception, and replaced it with an arbitrary one that is more convenient to me."
4. Having an abortion is taking responsability for one's actions.
It is the solution of a coward.

No, you're like the guy who upon seeing that man with the tree on his house will not allow him to remove it and hire someone to preform repairs because he must "take responsability" for his actions.
I would help him repair the house in the same way society should help mothers raise children. I would not help him to deny the fact that it is his own fault.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:45
Not quite.

Once the baby/foetus is alive there is a responsibility to it.

An egg cell is alive. A fertilized egg is alive. A (normal) fetus is alive throughout the pregnancy. It's not like it magically springs to life in the middle of the third trimester or something.


I find the baby=parasite/woman=machine arguement disturbing as it degrades both all babies everywhere AND it degredes women - viewing them as baby machines.

A fetus is a parasite. That term is accurate. I don't believe it is an insult to use the correct terminology. We may not like some of the connotations that are carried by the term, or we may be uncomfortable with some of the arguments made using that term, but it's still an accurate term.

A human fetus is a parasite. It is also alive (well, unless the fetus in question has died). It is also human, just as a human egg cell is human, a human sperm is human, and other human tissues are human. Whether or not it possesses "personhood" is a philosophical question that science cannot answer for us. But science can answer those other questions quite easily.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:45
Of course it has the right to use your body IF it is a person. they don't flip a coin and disconnect one of two conjoined twins, saving one and killing the other, simply because one doesn't want to share anymore...

Well, how conjoined are we talking here? They can disconnect them sometimes. And, of course, in some cases the arguement could be made that it's simply one body, but it depends, doesn't it?
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 16:45
If I have a guy wear a condom and still get pregnant, should the same situation not apply?

Condoms fail far too frequently. If you are relying on them alone, then you are not acting responsibly with regard to contraception at all.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:45
Not quite.

Once the baby/foetus is alive there is a responsibility to it.
For starters, a baby is not the same as a fetus. Furthermore, most abortions occur to embryos, not fetuses. By preventing an unwanted fetus or a subsequent unwanted baby from coming into being, a woman is taking responsability.

A mother is not allowed to dump a born baby in a bin just because she does not want to feed it. She is also not allowed to break it's head open with a hammer halfway through childbirth.
Yes, because at that point it is an individual life, not one that is living off her body. Once it has left her womb it isn't occupying her body.

I find the baby=parasite/woman=machine arguement disturbing as it degrades both all babies everywhere AND it degredes women - viewing them as baby machines.
No, insiting that women who have sex must be consenting to getting pregnant and then criticizing them for preventing a birth is treating them like baby machines and degrading them.
Revasser
03-11-2006, 16:45
I think the people should decide, not the government. God knows the government has enough powers as it is.

Why should "the people" get to decide what an individual does with her own body?
Free Randomers
03-11-2006, 16:46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_haven_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_hatch

You learn so much from NSG.

However this law requires the woman/parents to ahve a duty of care to the living infant. In a similar way I thik the woman should ahve a duty of care once the foetus is alive. Then there is the problem of where to draw the line at 'alive'

I like the UK reasoning - a woman can abort a baby upto 24 weeks because (at the time the leglislation was passed) at this age the baby is capeable of surving outside the omb (just). They are looking at reducing this to 22 weeks in light of a few cases where babies born that young have lived.

I think this is reasonable on both parties - the woman has 5-6 months to sort out an abortion and the foetus once alive (defined in this case) has it's life protected.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:46
Yes, and when you boil the water and still get a parasite, are you denied medical attention?

If I have a guy wear a condom and still get pregnant, should the same situation not apply?

For you, yes, for me No. Look I really don't care what you choose to do with your body, if you want to kill a child, go ahead. I find it morally irresponsible and wrong, and I'm always going to stand by that, no matter what. However, I do think the government should not decide on when life does begin because that'll just increase the power of the government, which I am against. You do your thing, I do mine.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:46
Of course it has the right to use your body IF it is a person. they don't flip a coin and disconnect one of two conjoined twins, saving one and killing the other, simply because one doesn't want to share anymore...
As far as I know, there has never been a case where one conjoined twin insisted upon separation over the objection of the other. I do not know what the legality of such a matter would be.

At any rate, that is a side issue. The fact remains that no born human has the rights you appear intent on granting to fetuses. If you are comfortable granting fetuses super-human rights, that's up to you.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:46
I would help him repair the house in the same way society should help mothers raise children. I would not help him to deny the fact that it is his own fault.

When has anyone denied 'fault'?
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 16:46
Of course it has the right to use your body IF it is a person. they don't flip a coin and disconnect one of two conjoined twins, saving one and killing the other, simply because one doesn't want to share anymore...

Do you have an example of a time when a conjoined twin has demanded to be seperated and been refused?
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 16:47
Well, how conjoined are we talking here? They can disconnect them sometimes. And, of course, in some cases the arguement could be made that it's simply one body, but it depends, doesn't it?

And if waiting eight months makes the procedure safer and easier to save both patients, then they will wait eight months before performing the prodedure, of course.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:47
Condoms fail far too frequently. If you are relying on them alone, then you are not acting responsibly with regard to contraception at all.
Condoms have a 97% pregnancy prevention rate. They don't fail frequently at all. In all the times I've had sex never has one broken.
If a condom did break, I know where to get the morning after pill, I know how much it costs and I know what time the place opens, believe me, I'd be there the next day.

I would be on the pill, except that my family has a history of bloodclots leading to things like strokes...
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 16:48
When has anyone denied 'fault'?

If you are happy to concede fault, then you are happy to concede it is your responsibility.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:48
Why should "the people" get to decide what an individual does with her own body?

Well if you read the post I was responding to, then you should know that I was talking about the indiviual people and for them to decide for themselves, in their own case.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:48
You do your thing, I do mine.

Unless I'm mistaken, that is what the Pro-Choice side generally advocates.
UpwardThrust
03-11-2006, 16:49
Of course it has the right to use your body IF it is a person. they don't flip a coin and disconnect one of two conjoined twins, saving one and killing the other, simply because one doesn't want to share anymore...

If one is a mindless husk sure they do ... there have been plenty of cases where the just arbitrarly removed the mindless twin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:49
Look I really don't care what you choose to do with your body, if you want to kill a child, go ahead.
There is no child to kill.
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 16:50
Eh why not.

So you're are basically against most forms of medical help as most injuries and many illnesses arise due to decisions a person makes.

An interesting position.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:50
If you are happy to concede fault, then you are happy to concede it is your responsibility.

Then I suppose we'd have to do something about it wouldn't we? I've yet to see it denied that abortions are, in fact, something.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:50
For you, yes, for me No. Look I really don't care what you choose to do with your body, if you want to kill a child, go ahead. I find it morally irresponsible and wrong, and I'm always going to stand by that, no matter what. However, I do think the government should not decide on when life does begin because that'll just increase the power of the government, which I am against. You do your thing, I do mine.
Cool, you're pro-choice. Then we've got no problem. :D
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:51
Unless I'm mistaken, that is what the Pro-Choice side generally advocates.

I'm not really pro-choice, but I know that I can't force other people to believe what I believe, so why try. I still do believe that life does begin at conception, and I still do believe that abortion is equal to murder, but eh.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 16:51
Then I suppose we'd have to do something about it wouldn't we? I've yet to see it denied that abortions are, in fact, something.

Personally, I'd hate to see a world where I can kill anyone and anything that caused me an inconvenience. But hey; I'm doing 'something' about the irritation, so it must be alright.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:52
Cool, you're pro-choice. Then we've got no problem. :D

You do realize that not every Pro-Life person is gung-ho to make you live under thier rules and what they think is morally right, right?
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:53
So you're are basically against most forms of medical help as most injuries and many illnesses arise due to decisions a person makes.

An interesting position.

Hey if you're dumb enough to do dumb thing, then you should be held accountable for the actions.
Revasser
03-11-2006, 16:53
Well if you read the post I was responding to, then you should know that I was talking about the indiviual people and for them to decide for themselves, in their own case.

I did and that was not readily apparent. "The people" was ambiguous in that context.

But okay, no problem.
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 16:53
As far as I know, there has never been a case where one conjoined twin insisted upon separation over the objection of the other. I do not know what the legality of such a matter would be.

At any rate, that is a side issue. The fact remains that no born human has the rights you appear intent on granting to fetuses. If you are comfortable granting fetuses super-human rights, that's up to you.

How does the fact remain? You keep saying no born person has those rights ,to force you to share your organs, I showed a scenario when a born person does have a right to share your organs, when two people are using the same organ. It is not a side issue, it is a direct answer to you absolute statement that no born person has those rights. I've shown that statement to be erroneous directly, not a technicality.
Andaluciae
03-11-2006, 16:54
Arguments for nuclear warfare:

I'll finally be able to get some peace and quiet.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:54
You do realize that not every Pro-Life person is gung-ho to make you live under thier rules and what they think is morally right, right?

Wow, you could have fooled me earlier on.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:54
Arguments for nuclear warfare:

I'll finally be able to get some peace and quiet.

Yea, but you'll get Nuclear posion.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 16:55
You do realize that not every Pro-Life person is gung-ho to make you live under thier rules and what they think is morally right, right?
By definition, "Pro-Life" individuals want to force me to live under their rules. If you believe I have the right to choose, then you are Pro-Choice.

You do realize that not every Pro-Choice person thinks abortion is a good idea, right? A whole lot of Pro-Choice people think abortion is horrible and wrong, they just also think that it's not their place to decide such things for other people. That sounds like what you believe. So you are Pro-Choice. Congrats!
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:55
No, it is a calculated risk. And, like all calculated risks, you must live with the consequences if the bet doesn't pay off.
Going to an abortion clinic and having an abortion is living with the consequences.

Like I said, it can, but does not kill to correct stupidity. I don't know what 'wuite' means.
1. Fuck off you know damn well wuite is a typing error of quite, the two letters are right next to each other.
2. Nothing is being killed.

Or, "I have taken the only objective point for the start of life, conception, and replaced it with an arbitrary one that is more convenient to me."
It's not one that's convenient or arbitrary, I place the start of life when the fetus begins preforming stimulus response as an organism, at that point it begins to fullfill the definition of what life is.

I would help him repair the house in the same way society should help mothers raise children. I would not help him to deny the fact that it is his own fault.
No, you clearly wouldn't.
Here is your response to abortion: A woman does something (has sex), it produces an undesireable result (pregnancy), you do not allow her to correct this undesirable result (have an abortion).

If your tree response is the same it goes like this: A man does something (fells a tree), it produces an undesireable result (tree falls on house), you do not allow him to correct the undesireable result (fixing his house).
Nonexistentland
03-11-2006, 16:55
Right.
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.

That arguments has been debunked so many times, it's really getting kind of boring now.

Has a kidney ever developed into a human being? Could it even do so?

Is that other person the product of your own sexual action?

No? No? No? Debunking it "so many times" before must have used a substantially better premise than the one just presented.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:55
Wow, you could have fooled me earlier on.

Hey, I was arguing for my own, and no one else.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:55
Personally, I'd hate to see a world where I can kill anyone and anything that caused me an inconvenience. But hey; I'm doing 'something' about the irritation, so it must be alright.

Well now, when did we say you were responsible for said people and things causing you an inconvinience?
Fleckenstein
03-11-2006, 16:56
Hey if you're dumb enough to do dumb thing, then you should be held accountable for the actions.

So if I slip and break my arm, I am ineligible for treatment because it was my decision to walk.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:56
Hey, I was arguing for my own, and no one else.

If you didn't want your position for anyone else, why were you argueing it with us? I don't follow...
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 16:57
If one is a mindless husk sure they do ... there have been plenty of cases where the just arbitrarly removed the mindless twin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin

They never did it when they thought the twin was treatable. Find one instance of them separating a twin that they thought they could treat for a few months and then save both patients... Then your point would stand, but you tried to compare apples to oranges here.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 16:57
Personally, I'd hate to see a world where I can kill anyone and anything that caused me an inconvenience. But hey; I'm doing 'something' about the irritation, so it must be alright.
So you never slap mosquitos?
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:57
Has a kidney ever developed into a human being? Could it even do so?

Concievably, if you like cloning.
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 16:57
How does the fact remain? You keep saying no born person has those rights ,to force you to share your organs, I showed a scenario when a born person does have a right to share your organs, when two people are using the same organ. It is not a side issue, it is a direct answer to you absolute statement that no born person has those rights. I've shown that statement to be erroneous directly, not a technicality.

You aren't forced to. The weaker twin died.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/europe/1272144.stm
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 16:58
They never did it when they thought the twin was treatable. Find one instance of them separating a twin that they thought they could treat for a few months and then save both patients... Then your point would stand, but you tried to compare apples to oranges here.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7291/931/a
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:58
By definition, "Pro-Life" individuals want to force me to live under their rules. If you believe I have the right to choose, then you are Pro-Choice.

You do realize that not every Pro-Choice person thinks abortion is a good idea, right? A whole lot of Pro-Choice people think abortion is horrible and wrong, they just also think that it's not their place to decide such things for other people. That sounds like what you believe. So you are Pro-Choice. Congrats!

Eh whatever, but near the church I'm Pro-Life, I don't need a 2 hour lecture by Father Gray on why letting people decide to screw up their own life and how I am somehow responsible to save all of mankind is a bad idea.

My philosophy: You can do whatever the hell you want, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other, and it doesn't raise my taxes. I'm not responsible to prevent you from doing stupid things, so I'm not even going to try.
Curious Inquiry
03-11-2006, 16:59
Former First Lady Barbara Bush (W's mom) once said,
"Abortion is an issue between a woman and her doctor. It has no place in a political platform."

For me, end of story.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 16:59
So if I slip and break my arm, I am ineligible for treatment because it was my decision to walk.

Note I said, STUPID things. By that I mean drinking, smoking, unprotective sex, taking drugs, or the general acts of stupidness.
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 17:00
They never did it when they thought the twin was treatable. Find one instance of them separating a twin that they thought they could treat for a few months and then save both patients... Then your point would stand, but you tried to compare apples to oranges here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5255982.stm

This do?
Fleckenstein
03-11-2006, 17:00
Note I said, STUPID things. By that I mean drinking, smoking, unprotective sex, taking drugs, or the general acts of stupidness.

But it was stupid of me to walk well knowing I could slip. Which is generally stupid.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 17:01
Has a kidney ever developed into a human being? Could it even do so?

Has an embryo ever independently developed into a human being? Could it ever do so?

Women's bodies make babies. It's that simple. An embryo will never be a baby by itself. It doesn't grow itself. It doesn't magically make itself into a person. The woman's body is not a passive casing in which the fetus makes itself into a person. The woman's body builds the fetus from its own tissues and materials. Her body guides the process. Signals from her body are essential to the growth and development.

An embryo will not develop into a human being any more than a kidney will, without the active involvement of a woman's body (or, in theory, artificial intervention that replicates the involvement of a woman's body).

Of course, in theory we could take stem cells from your hippocampus and stimulate them to become a kidney or a human person. We don't have the technology to do this yet, but it is theoretically possible and may be a reality in the future. Does this mean that your hippocampus contains hundreds or thousands of tiny unborn people?

Potentiality is not actuality. A pile of ingredients on my counter is not a finished batch of cookies. An acorn is not a tree. Try sitting in the shade of an acorn on a hot day, and you'll see what I mean.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:02
Note I said, STUPID things. By that I mean drinking, smoking, unprotective sex, taking drugs, or the general acts of stupidness.
Uh... people receive treatment for alcohol poisoning all the time. Doctors don't refuse treatment on the basis of "well, you were stupid to do it in the first place"
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:02
But it was stupid of me to walk well knowing I could slip. Which is generally stupid.

Ok, then let me redfine, if you do something, in which you know what the outcome will likely be, but did it anyways, then you just did a stupid thing.
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 17:02
Note I said, STUPID things. By that I mean drinking, smoking, unprotective sex, taking drugs, or the general acts of stupidness.

So if you have protected sex and then become pregnant the an abortion is ok because you weren't being stupid?
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:02
Potentiality is not actuality. A pile of ingredients on my counter is not a finished batch of cookies.

Although cookie dough is pretty damn good.
[NS]Trilby63
03-11-2006, 17:03
Ok, then let me redfine, if you do something, in which you know what the outcome will likely be, but did it anyways, then you just did a stupid thing.

Like starting an abortion debate knowing full well that you're going to be pwned?
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:03
Going to an abortion clinic and having an abortion is living with the consequences.
No, it's attempting to hide from the consequences, and avoid responsibility. It is an attempt to justify killing because you can't be bothered to deal with having to adapt your own lifestyle. It is the driver who runs over someone by accident, and then, rather than calling for medical help, reverses back over the victim to make sure the job is done.
1. Fuck off you know damn well wuite is a typing error of quite, the two letters are right next to each other.
There's no need to be quite so aggressive. It wasn't a criticism; I make typo's all the time. I genuinely didn't know what you meant.
2. Nothing is being killed.
Only because it is easier for you to deny it exists than to accept you are killing. It is a standard tactic of all oppressive regimes; the Jews were not, after all, 'people' for the Nazi's to kill.
It's not one that's convenient or arbitrary, I place the start of life when the fetus begins preforming stimulus response as an organism, at that point it begins to fullfill the definition of what life is.
It is an arbitrary point. At the moment of conception everything that is needed for a human life is complete.
No, you clearly wouldn't.
Here is your response to abortion: A woman does something (has sex), it produces an undesireable result (pregnancy), you do not allow her to correct this undesirable result (have an abortion).

If your tree response is the same it goes like this: A man does something (fells a tree), it produces an undesireable result (tree falls on house), you do not allow him to correct the undesireable result (fixing his house).
A woman does something (has sex); it produces an undersirable (but perfectly foreseeable) result (pregnancy); I help her deal with this result (help her through the pregnancy and support the child); I do not help her try and hide from her responsibility (just kill the baby).

Man does something (tree), undesireable but foreseeable (falls on house), help to correct (fix the house), don't help to hide from responsibility (sue the saw manufacturer). Simple.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:04
Ok, then let me redfine, if you do something, in which you know what the outcome will likely be, but did it anyways, then you just did a stupid thing.

But of course, any one paticular instance of unprotected sex is unlikely to result in pregnancy. So abortions are okay (b^_^)b.
Fleckenstein
03-11-2006, 17:04
Ok, then let me redfine, if you do something, in which you know what the outcome will likely be, but did it anyways, then you just did a stupid thing.

But I am likely to slip and fall.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:04
So if you have protected sex and then become pregnant the an abortion is ok because you weren't being stupid?

Eh sure why not, I'm tired of debating this topic anyways, jeez it's like every six month we bring it back up, and no one is ever able to convience the other side, so why do we try?
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:05
Trilby63;11896061']Like starting an abortion debate knowing full well that you're going to be pwned?

Actually, Rit over there started it, but Willy decided to argue with Bottle, and that was, in fact, stupid.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:05
If you didn't want your position for anyone else, why were you argueing it with us? I don't follow...

I also believe that abortion is morally wrong, but unavoidable. I've said so on here many times before. The fact that some things will always happen, however, will not stop me trying to reduce their occurance as much as possible.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:06
But of course, any one paticular instance of unprotected sex is unlikely to result in pregnancy. So abortions are okay (b^_^)b.

You wish.
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 17:06
No, it's attempting to hide from the consequences, and avoid responsibility. It is an attempt to justify killing because you can't be bothered to deal with having to adapt your own lifestyle. It is the driver who runs over someone by accident, and then, rather than calling for medical help, reverse back over the victim to make sure the job is done.

This is where I'm gonna say that you're talking out of your arse. Do you know anyone who has actually had an abortion? Do you have any idea of the remorse they can go through? I do and it's not a walk in the park for anyone concerned.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:06
A woman does something (has sex); it produces an undersirable (but perfectly foreseeable) result (pregnancy); I help her deal with this result (help her through the pregnancy and support the child); I do not help her try and hide from her responsibility (just kill the baby).

What, precisely, is her responsibility?
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:06
So you never slap mosquitos?

So you always smother screaming babies?
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:07
I also believe that abortion is morally wrong, but unavoidable. I've said so on here many times before. The fact that some things will always happen, however, will not stop me trying to reduce their occurance as much as possible.

I like you. :fluffle:
Fleckenstein
03-11-2006, 17:07
Only because it is easier for you to deny it exists than to accept you are killing. It is a standard tactic of all oppressive regimes; the Jews were not, after all, 'people' for the Nazi's to kill.

Because being Pro-Choice is being an oppressive regime that runs around randomly aborting fetuses, forcing its viewpoint on others.

Wait, doesnt Pro-Choice mean just do what you want?
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:07
You wish.

Eh? Are you saying pregnancy isn't unlikely?
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 17:07
Eh sure why not, I'm tired of debating this topic anyways, jeez it's like every six month we bring it back up, and no one is ever able to convience the other side, so why do we try?

Coz that's what NSG is for. If we actually wanted to achieve anything then we wouldn't be sat in front of a pc.
Ashmoria
03-11-2006, 17:07
How does the fact remain? You keep saying no born person has those rights ,to force you to share your organs, I showed a scenario when a born person does have a right to share your organs, when two people are using the same organ. It is not a side issue, it is a direct answer to you absolute statement that no born person has those rights. I've shown that statement to be erroneous directly, not a technicality.

i think you need to do a bit more research into seperating conjoined twins.

most of the conjoined twins who are seperated are seperated as babies without the possibility of their consent. the parents decide. shared organs are shared organs. its a medical decision as to who gets what and every effort is made for each twin to have what it needs to live. if that is impossible, and if the twins cant survive conjoined, the decision is sometimes made to seperate in favor of the stronger twin. if both are equal and they can survive conjoined but only one can survive if seperated, that is an issue of medical ethics, not a matter of that one twin can force upon the other.

in pregnancy, the line between organisms is clear.
LazyOtaku
03-11-2006, 17:07
Ok, then let me redfine, if you do something, in which you know what the outcome will likely be, but did it anyways, then you just did a stupid thing.

Like a soldier who gets wounded when he tries to protect his country? Should they be denied treatment?
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:08
Actually, Rit over there started it, but Willy decided to argue with Bottle, and that was, in fact, stupid.

Actually I was just hoping to get away with the one post about when does life begin, and that would be it. Did not work out so well.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:08
So you always smother screaming babies?

Where the hell did that come from?
Despoticania
03-11-2006, 17:08
I support abortion, but, however, only in three cases:


1.) The pregnancy has started because of a rape.

2.) The fetus is deformed, or is expected to have several handicaps or diseases.

3.) The pregnancy threatens the mother's life.


In other cases, the abortion should be illegal. The fetus is not sentinent, and as long as the terms above apply, and the mother is willing to abort the pregnancy, she should have the right to do so. However, when the fetus has grown old enough, the abortion should become illegal, even if the terms above apply.

I think this is the best way to satisfy both the pro-life and the pro-choice activists. What do you think?
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:08
No, it's attempting to hide from the consequences, and avoid responsibility.
No it isn't.

It is an attempt to justify killing because you can't be bothered to deal with having to adapt your own lifestyle.
No, you can't kill something that isn't yet a life.

It is the driver who runs over someone by accident, and then, rather than calling for medical help, reverse back over the victim to make sure the job is done.
Ok, now your examples are just becoming stupid and insulting.

There's no need to be quite so aggressive. It wasn't a criticism; I make typo's all the time. I genuinely didn't know what you meant.
Bullshit.

Only because it is easier for you to deny it exists than to accept you are killing. It is a standard tactic of all oppressive regimes; the Jews were not, after all, 'people' for the Nazi's to kill.
:rolleyes:
Ok, this thread is over, the nazi comparison has been trotted out.

It is an arbitrary point. At the moment of conception everything that is needed for a human life is complete.
Oh, in that case, then the embryo can still get the fuck out of my womb and make a life of its own. Flee, embryo, flee! (yes, I have stopped taking you seriously since the nazi comparison)

A woman does something (has sex); it produces an undersirable (but perfectly foreseeable) result (pregnancy); I help her deal with this result (help her through the pregnancy and support the child); I do not help her try and hide from her responsibility (just kill the baby).
Can't kill a baby if it's not a baby, learn the terminology before arguing.

Man does something (tree), undesireable but foreseeable (falls on house), help to correct (fix the house), don't help to hide from responsibility (sue the saw manufacturer). Simple.
Nope, your comparison sucked. Try again. Too bad I won't be responding to your future posts, maybe someone else will.

Yes, I don't take too kindly to idiots who call me a nazi.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:09
Eh? Are you saying pregnancy isn't unlikely?

If you have unprotective sex, thinking that you won't get pregent, then you're a dumbass.
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 17:09
You aren't forced to. The weaker twin died.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/europe/1272144.stm

That's not even a 'choice' abortion comparison then. The parents did NOT want the procedure done. The government did it to them. The government sentenced the one child to death. This is like the Chinese forced abortions on women who want to keep their babies. If THAT's the government policy methodology you want to defend, courts ordering the death of your children against your will then so bit it, but that's seems pretty messed up to me and I have no qualms whatsoever in fighting back and trying to take that power away from your side.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:09
Where the hell did that come from?
Well, all pro-choicers are nazis, so clearly we smother babies too.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:09
What, precisely, is her responsibility?

Quite frankly, if you need someone to spell out for you what the responsibilty of a mother is, you shouldn't be in this debate to begin with,
Fleckenstein
03-11-2006, 17:10
Well, all pro-choicers are nazis, so clearly we smother babies too.

And we go around preaching the evil gospel that is free will.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:11
I support abortion, but, however, only in three cases:


1.) The pregnancy has started because of a rape.

2.) The fetus is deformed, or is expected to have several handicaps or diseases.

3.) The pregnancy threatens the mother's life.


In other cases, the abortion should be illegal. The fetus is not sentinent, and as long as the terms above apply, and the mother is willing to abort the pregnancy, she should have the right to do so. However, when the fetus has grown old enough, the abortion should become illegal, even if the terms above apply.

I think this is the best way to satisfy both the pro-life and the pro-choice activists. What do you think?

Wouldn't the bolded part lead us down a slipperly slope of deciding when a person is handicapped, or deformed?
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:11
Well, all pro-choicers are nazis, so clearly we smother babies too.
:rolleyes:

If you are prepared to compare a child to a mosquito, then I shall simply follow you up on that comparison.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:11
Quite frankly, if you need someone to spell out for you what the responsibilty of a mother is, you shouldn't be in this debate to begin with,


Well, I need to know what you specifically think. It's apparently something that abortion is hideing from, but giving birth is dealing with. I can't quite figure out what this is supposed to be, so I feel you need to elaborate. It's also somehow equal to your responsibility of a tree you felled on yourr house.
Bruarong
03-11-2006, 17:12
Consider that it is considered completely moral to remove a ringworm.
This is because the human's right to not have a parasite in it's body overides the right of the ringworm to not get killed.
And "the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe" contradicts itself all the time when dealing with more then one species:
The wildebeast wants to not get eaten by the lion, because it dies otherwise.
The lion wants to eat the wildebeast, because it dies from starvation otherwise.
One being's rights have to get trampled on to protect the other's.

Since when does a human embryo get to be a difference species to the adult human?
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:12
That's not even a 'choice' abortion comparison then. The parents did NOT want the procedure done. The government did it to them. The government sentenced the one child to death. This is like the Chinese forced abortions on women who want to keep their babies. If THAT's the government policy methodology you want to defend, courts ordering the death of your children against your will then so bit it, but that's seems pretty messed up to me and I have no qualms whatsoever in fighting back and trying to take that power away from your side.

I've not heard of Chinese forced abortions. NSG, enlighten me.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:13
:rolleyes:

If you are prepared to compare a child to a mosquito, then I shall simply follow you up on that comparison.
I didnt' comapre a child to a mosquito. You said that it is wrong for anything to die for the convenience of another. If you didn't include mosquitos, then you shouldn't make such statements. By the way, do you eat meat as well?
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:13
If you have unprotective sex, thinking that you won't get pregent, then you're a dumbass.

You said it had to be a likely outcome for it to be a stupid action, and pregnancy is not likely.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:14
:rolleyes:
Ok, this thread is over, the nazi comparison has been trotted out.
Are you always this hyper-sensitive to disagreement, or is it a special something that I have earned? My reference was to a change in terminology to justify actions.

Oh, in that case, then the embryo can still get the fuck out of my womb and make a life of its own. Flee, embryo, flee! (yes, I have stopped taking you seriously since the nazi comparison)
I've yet to see you reply to any of my posts seriously to begin with.

Can't kill a baby if it's not a baby, learn the terminology before arguing.
It's a mosquito, right?
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:14
You said it had to be a likely outcome for it to be a stupid action, and pregnancy is not likely.

You fail at biology, please google "Process of reproduction."
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 17:14
i think you need to do a bit more research into seperating conjoined twins.

most of the conjoined twins who are seperated are seperated as babies without the possibility of their consent. the parents decide. shared organs are shared organs. its a medical decision as to who gets what and every effort is made for each twin to have what it needs to live. if that is impossible, and if the twins cant survive conjoined, the decision is sometimes made to seperate in favor of the stronger twin. if both are equal and they can survive conjoined but only one can survive if seperated, that is an issue of medical ethics, not a matter of that one twin can force upon the other.

in pregnancy, the line between organisms is clear.

The relevant sections of you paragraph in relations to abortion and seperation choices were bolded. If saving both patients is only a matter of waiting eight months and there is no expected hazard for either patient to wait 8 months, the procedure will not be done until it IS safe for both patients...


Secondary point, your last line and conclusion there...How does your first statement justify and conclude with the second statement about organs and pregnancy is a clear line? Clear in you mind perhaps, but not established by your previous statement...
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 17:14
That's not even a 'choice' abortion comparison then. The parents did NOT want the procedure done. The government did it to them. The government sentenced the one child to death. This is like the Chinese forced abortions on women who want to keep their babies. If THAT's the government policy methodology you want to defend, courts ordering the death of your children against your will then so bit it, but that's seems pretty messed up to me and I have no qualms whatsoever in fighting back and trying to take that power away from your side.

Nice strawman. The story was to prove that conjoined twins don't enjoy an automatic right to the organs of each other to counted your argument that they do. Now conceed that you were wrong.

Edit: Still waiting for a response to this as well.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896044&postcount=99
Despoticania
03-11-2006, 17:15
Wouldn't the bolded part lead us down a slipperly slope of deciding when a person is handicapped, or deformed?


Well, if it would slip to that, the terms above would not apply anymore. The deformations must be severe in order to abort the pregnancy.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:15
I didnt' comapre a child to a mosquito. You said that it is wrong for anything to die for the convenience of another. If you didn't include mosquitos, then you shouldn't make such statements. By the way, do you eat meat as well?

Actually, I said that a child shouldn't be killed because letting it live would be an inconvenience to the mother.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:17
Well, if it would slip to that, the terms above would not apply anymore. The deformations must be severe in order to abort the pregnancy.

Also, whos to say that the handicapped/deformed person wouldn't still lead a full rich life despite the handicapps/deformity?
Ashmoria
03-11-2006, 17:17
I support abortion, but, however, only in three cases:


1.) The pregnancy has started because of a rape.

2.) The fetus is deformed, or is expected to have several handicaps or diseases.

3.) The pregnancy threatens the mother's life.


In other cases, the abortion should be illegal. The fetus is not sentinent, and as long as the terms above apply, and the mother is willing to abort the pregnancy, she should have the right to do so. However, when the fetus has grown old enough, the abortion should become illegal, even if the terms above apply.

I think this is the best way to satisfy both the pro-life and the pro-choice activists. What do you think?


so as long as the woman signs a paper saying it was rape she can have a abortion on demand?
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:17
You fail at biology, please google "Process of reproduction."

You don't seem to understand me. Considering, for example, that fertilization would only occur during ovulation and most zygotes fail to implant and wash out with the next period, pregnancy is statistically unlikely.
[NS]Trilby63
03-11-2006, 17:18
I haven't been paying attention. Are all abortions immoral? Even for rape and incest?
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:19
Are you always this hyper-sensitive to disagreement, or is it a special something that I have earned? My reference was to a change in terminology to justify actions.
No, it's not that I'm hyper sensitive to disagreement, have you heard of Godwin's law?

There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves also to impose an upper bound on thread length in general. However, it is rare for the person accused of an unfair comparison to Nazism to concede the argument themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I've yet to see you reply to any of my posts seriously to begin with.
Too bad you haven't been reading them then.

It's a mosquito, right?
Nope, embryo, thanks for playing but I'm afraid you've missed out on the grand prize.
Despoticania
03-11-2006, 17:19
so as long as the woman signs a paper saying it was rape she can have a abortion on demand?


Usually the rape leaves clear marks to the victim's body.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:20
You don't seem to understand me. Considering, for example, that fertilization would only occur during ovulation and most zygotes fail to implant and wash out with the next period, pregnancy is statistically unlikely.

Yes, but there's a more likely chance of it's happening with unprotective than, then with protective sex. If you are stupid enough to not take the proper caution against an unwanted pregency, then you should deal with the consequences.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:21
Actually, I said that a child shouldn't be killed because letting it live would be an inconvenience to the mother.

Too bad that's not at all what you said:

Personally, I'd hate to see a world where I can kill anyone and anything that caused me an inconvenience. But hey; I'm doing 'something' about the irritation, so it must be alright.

By this logic, slapping mosquitos is wrong, as is eating meat. It's killing something for your convenience.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:21
No, it's not that I'm hyper sensitive to disagreement, have you heard of Godwin's law?

Oh deary me. I thought you had a weak argument; I didn't realise that is was so weak that you had to rely on a nerdy piece of internet slang to convince yourself you'd won. That's a bit sad, really.

If I'd said 'you're a Nazi for killing babies', then that's one thing. To use one of the most important lessons of history to make a point is quite another.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:21
Usually the rape leaves clear marks to the victim's body.
No it doesn't.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:22
Too bad that's not at all what you said:

You're right. That's what I said.

Apart from the bit where you changed what I said.
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 17:23
Nice strawman. The story was to prove that conjoined twins don't enjoy an automatic right to the organs of each other to counted your argument that they do. Now conceed that you were wrong.

Edit: Still waiting for a response to this as well.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896044&postcount=99

None of the individuals in your story had the right to stay alive or be treated by their own free will. Not the patients nor their parents. How is that a strawman? In fact, the strawman is you example because it was not a 'choice' at all, the government determined for them and that is EXACTLY what you are arguing against, letting the government tell you what you can and cannot do. Who then is using the strawman? You concede that you don't really want your government to tell you when and where to die and then take the power of you being allowed to make decisions for yourself away from you...
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:23
Oh deary me. I thought you had a weak argument; I didn't realise that is was so weak that you had to rely on a nerdy piece of internet slang to convince yourself you'd won. That's a bit sad, really.
No, you had the weak argument, which is why you made the nazi comparison in the first place. You know it's offensive and an extreme example and that's why you used it, to make me out to be the bad guy. If you wanted to participate in civil discussions online, you wouldn't make those comparsons, however, you have clearly declined to be civil.
Nonexistentland
03-11-2006, 17:23
Consider that it is considered completely moral to remove a ringworm.
This is because the human's right to not have a parasite in it's body overides the right of the ringworm to not get killed.
And "the two most basic needs of every living organism in the universe" contradicts itself all the time when dealing with more then one species:
The wildebeast wants to not get eaten by the lion, because it dies otherwise.
The lion wants to eat the wildebeast, because it dies from starvation otherwise.
One being's rights have to get trampled on to protect the other's.

So, a ringworm is suddenly equivalent, in essence, to the joining of a human sperm and a human egg? Nevermind that we are discussing two entirely different species. A ringworm can morally be removed because it is an intruder, not created within the body and not capable of being anything but a parasite in its existence. A human fetus, on the other hand, requires sustenance from the mother for a period of about nine months. Long time. Hold on...9 months/(75 years x 12 months) = .01. A human fetus takes up 1% of a woman's average lifespan. Not much of a parasite.
Okay, so you have to support the child, once it is born. Usually that's about 18 years @ $20,000 USD/yr. Wait--did we just put a cost on a human life? Has society been degraded to the point where we must relate raising a child in terms of emotional and economic cost? Gee, last time we related cost to human life we were selling them on the market.
That is not to say that it is not necessary to consider such things when considering terminating a life. For certain, many feel inadequate, incapable, and utterly incompetent--or maybe just lazy? It's fine to go out, have a good time, hook up and have sex. But if you do so considering that you don't have to be held accountable for the possible consequences of your actions, that's irresponsible. It's childish and immature to forego personal, economic, social and moral responsibility. Integrity? In this day and age, it's only however far your money can take you.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:23
No it doesn't.

Umm, ok, I'm going to leave now. *leaves thread* :rolleyes:
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:24
You're right. That's what I said.

Apart from the bit where you changed what I said.
Uh, no, feel free to click the little green arrow that takes you back to where you said that. No fair editing now.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:24
Yes, but there's a more likely chance of it's happening with unprotective than, then with protective sex. If you are stupid enough to not take the proper caution against an unwanted pregency, then you should deal with the consequences.

I remember nothing in your statment about more likely.
Despoticania
03-11-2006, 17:24
Also, whos to say that the handicapped/deformed person wouldn't still lead a full rich life despite the handicapps/deformity?


That is possible, but uncertain. I am definitely not a pro-life activist, but not a fanatic pro-choice activist either.
It's up to the mother (who is provided with all the information she wants) to decide, if she wants the abortion, if severe handicaps are discovered.
Wilgrove
03-11-2006, 17:24
I remember nothing in your statment about more likely.

Yes, but not everything is black and white. *leaves thread again*
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:24
Umm, ok, I'm going to leave now. *leaves thread* :rolleyes:
Well, rape doesn't always leave clear marks on a woman's body that consentual sex does not.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:25
So, a ringworm is suddenly equivalent, in essence, to the joining of a human sperm and a human egg?

Far from equivalent. But of course, they are both parasitic.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:25
No, you had the weak argument, which is why you made the nazi comparison in the first place.
I shall simply repeat how sad it is that you've decided to run away from the point and hide behind a 'OMG you can't say that!!!' defence.

You know it's offensive and an extreme example and that's why you used it, to make me out to be the bad guy. If you wanted to participate in civil discussions online, you wouldn't make those comparsons, however, you have clearly declined to be civil.
Again, calling you a Nazi is offensive. Highlighting an important historical example of how changing terminology was used to justify actions is not.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 17:27
I shall simply repeat how sad it is that you've decided to run away from the point and hide behind a 'OMG you can't say that!!!' defence.
And I shall simply remind you that comparing someone's views to the views of a group of genocidal nutjobs is not considered fair play in a debate and no one will debate with you after such an insult. I'm not hiding from your point, your comparison was a very poor one.

Again, calling you a Nazi is offensive. Highlighting an important historical example of how changing terminology was used to justify actions is not.
No, you didnt' call me a nazi, you just said that I share views with them. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, you're the one using improper terminology calling an embryo a baby, I'm using the proper medical terminology.

Now I have to go to class.
Nonexistentland
03-11-2006, 17:28
Concievably, if you like cloning.

A kidney, on its own, in its entirety and functional existence as a kidney, does not develop into a human being. Cloning uses specific cells and DNA to construct another component of a human being--theoretically--and even then, effectively cloning an entire human being will probably never be achieved.
Ashmoria
03-11-2006, 17:28
The relevant sections of you paragraph in relations to abortion and seperation choices were bolded. If saving both patients is only a matter of waiting eight months and there is no expected hazard for either patient to wait 8 months, the procedure will not be done until it IS safe for both patients...


Secondary point, your last line and conclusion there...How does your first statement justify and conclude with the second statement about organs and pregnancy is a clear line? Clear in you mind perhaps, but not established by your previous statement...


your analogy doesnt stand up

1) in abortion there arent 2 people, there is one person and one embryo/fetus.

2) in abortion its easy to tell where one person begins and the other ends, in conjoined twins there are shared organs which form the crux of seperation issues, there is no one definite owner of that organ

3) in seperating conjoined twins the decision isnt made by the twins but by their parents and doctors. it cant be one twin exerting is legal rights over the other twin.

4) conjoined twins are an accident of birth. the twins exist as legal equals. there was never a time where one twin existed on its own with its own bodily integrity

5) has there ever been a case where one adult twin sued in court to force the other twin into seperation surgery that might end up in death? if its not been litigated, there is no way to say what the court might decide in the case where "the liver" is obvious owned by one and being used by the other.
Philosopy
03-11-2006, 17:30
And I shall simply remind you that comparing someone's views to the views of a group of genocidal nutjobs is not considered fair play in a debate and no one will debate with you after such an insult. I'm not hiding from your point, your comparison was a very poor one.
And again, you've in no way shown it to be poor. All you have done is linked to a Wiki article about internet slang.

No, you didnt' call me a nazi, you just said that I share views with them. :rolleyes:
And, once more, this is simply not true. Once again, I gave an example of how changing terminolgy was used to justify actions. You have read an insult where none was intended.
Ashmoria
03-11-2006, 17:35
Usually the rape leaves clear marks to the victim's body.

not ones that last to 16 weeks later.

she isnt pregnant the next day.

does she have to show her bruises to a pharmacist (or store clerk) in order to get the morning after pill too?
Nonexistentland
03-11-2006, 17:35
Far from equivalent. But of course, they are both parasitic.

The poster to whom I replied equates the two in his/her example. A ringworm is parasitic--yes--it is alien to the human body, a separate entity that does nothing to its host besides being a freeloader. A child is only parasitic if it is viewed as a burden--only 1% of its life is it necessary for the mother to support it for survival purposes. A ringworm, a true parasite, lives its entire life off its host. It does not survive otherwise.
Dempublicents1
03-11-2006, 17:37
Yes, but there's a more likely chance of it's happening with unprotective than, then with protective sex. If you are stupid enough to not take the proper caution against an unwanted pregency, then you should deal with the consequences.

I just *love* the "punishment by baby" argument.

Also, whos to say that the handicapped/deformed person wouldn't still lead a full rich life despite the handicapps/deformity?

Depends on the particular deformity. Trisomy of any chromosome other than 21 or a sex chromosome will result in extrodinarily painful conditions in which an infant generally only lives a few minutes, and almost never longer than a year. Said infants will be in pain for whatever brief lifespan they have. Would you consider that a "full rich life"?

In cases of severe hydrocephalus, once again, you are looking at an infant that is not going to live more than a few minutes. And any attempt at natural childbirth in such a case will be extremely dangerous to the mother.

In the case of anencephaly, no brain will ever develop beyond the brain stem.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 17:43
A kidney, on its own, in its entirety and functional existence as a kidney, does not develop into a human being. Cloning uses specific cells and DNA to construct another component of a human being--theoretically--and even then, effectively cloning an entire human being will probably never be achieved.

Of course, an embryo, completely on it's own wouldn't either.
Nonexistentland
03-11-2006, 17:46
Of course, an embryo, completely on it's own wouldn't either.

Sure it does. [human] Egg + [human] Sperm = Human. Mystery of life. It's within its functional capacity.
PootWaddle
03-11-2006, 17:47
your analogy doesnt stand up

1) in abortion there arent 2 people, there is one person and one embryo/fetus.

According to you. You have not established that there is any significant different between a person who is an embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, pre-schooler, child, teen, young adult, middle-aged adult, retiree and senior citizen…. Same person, different ages of the same organism we call a person.

2) in abortion its easy to tell where one person begins and the other ends, in conjoined twins there are shared organs which form the crux of seperation issues, there is no one definite owner of that organ

I would argue that the placenta (for example) belongs to both the mother and the child. Cutting it out requires drastic measures, whereas waiting 8 months it will take care of itself (in all likelihood), standard abortion (what we are talking about I think) is an unnecessary surgery, not for the health of the patients involved, not a doctor derived decision. Thus, abortion is not defended by the hard decisions required for some risk taking in conjoined twin decisions… Again, wait eight months to have two healthy patients? The doctors will do that every time over trying to rush the surgery for no medical reason.

3) in seperating conjoined twins the decision isnt made by the twins but by their parents and doctors. it cant be one twin exerting is legal rights over the other twin.

And it shouldn’t be the right of one person over the other, that was my point, yes. And therefore, the medical decision to save both patients should be the choice made.

4) conjoined twins are an accident of birth. the twins exist as legal equals. there was never a time where one twin existed on its own with its own bodily integrity

Accidental pregnancies are accidents of birth…There was never a time that the embryo was not inside its place of origin. (safely assuming no artificial insemination was involved because if that was the case, why would they want an abortion ?).

5) has there ever been a case where one adult twin sued in court to force the other twin into seperation surgery that might end up in death? if its not been litigated, there is no way to say what the court might decide in the case where "the liver" is obvious owned by one and being used by the other.

If I can’t say which way the court did rule, I’ll argue for which way it should rule.
Brigligate
03-11-2006, 17:59
:(
You know, i'm not for abortion, and i in no way shape or form support it... but what i'm wondering is why there is a double standard in this country. If a woman wants her unborn child killed, then thats fine, and there are no criminal charges, but if she is killed and the child dies, then it's a double murder?? abortion's basis is the fact that a foetus is not a human until it emerges from the womb, (which brings up partial-birth abortion, which i wont get into) and if that is the case, then how come she isnt charged, but if someone else does it they are?... all i'm asking for is consistency... either charge the mother for murder or dont charge the criminal for murder... morbid i know, but think about it:(
Brigligate
03-11-2006, 18:02
And why do you have to kill it? why dont you just put it up for adoption? how hard is that?
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:11
:(
You know, i'm not for abortion, and i in no way shape or form support it... but what i'm wondering is why there is a double standard in this country. If a woman wants her unborn child killed, then thats fine, and there are no criminal charges, but if she is killed and the child dies, then it's a double murder??

Because the laws that make such murders into double homicides were advanced by the anti-choice lobby, in a back-door effort to start criminalizing abortion.


abortion's basis is the fact that a foetus is not a human until it emerges from the womb, (which brings up partial-birth abortion, which i wont get into) ...
Actually, the basis for abortion is that a human person has the right to control what happens to their own body. Whether or not a fetus is a human person is beside the point, since no human person has the right take my body without my consent.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:12
And why do you have to kill it? why dont you just put it up for adoption? how hard is that?
Hehehe, spoke like somebody who has no clue what is involved in pregnancy or childbirth.

Also, clearly, as somebody who doesn't know that the risk of death from childbirth is more than 7 times the risk from abortion. :(
Brigligate
03-11-2006, 18:16
Actually, the basis for abortion is that a human person has the right to control what happens to their own body. Whether or not a fetus is a human person is beside the point, since no human person has the right take my body without my consent.[/QUOTE]

How does that make sense? Who took your body? the child? All of this leads back to the fact that america's sex ed is really screwed up... America wont last that much longer anyways, with the rate of events happening...
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:19
How does that make sense? Who took your body? the child?

If a fetus is granted the right to live inside my body and use my body to sustain its life against my wishes, then yes. We do not permit any born human beings to do this. Why should fetuses have rights that no born human beings have?


All of this leads back to the fact that america's sex ed is really screwed up...
How so?
Brigligate
03-11-2006, 18:19
Also, clearly, as somebody who doesn't know that the risk of death from childbirth is more than 7 times the risk from abortion. :(

Well i dont know what doctor you're going to... but i'm glad i'm not there.. sounds like your in france or some dirty country... around here, the chances of death by abortion are about the same, if not more than the chance of death by childbirth... and if that is the average, then take out the countries that do not have sufficient medical treatment options, and then average it out.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:21
Well i dont know what doctor you're going to... but i'm glad i'm not there.. sounds like your in france or some dirty country...

America.


around here, the chances of death by abortion are about the same, if not more than the chance of death by childbirth... and if that is the average, then take out the countries that do not have sufficient medical treatment options, and then average it out.
In nations where abortion is a legal medical practice, abortion is significantly safer than childbirth. This is true in the US, Canada, and throughout Europe (among other places).

Of course, in nations where abortion is illegal, it is far more dangerous and more women die from abortions. However, women in those countries tend to have poorer access to reproductive health care in general, so their risks of dying during pregnancy or childbirth are also higher.
Brigligate
03-11-2006, 18:21
If a fetus is granted the right to live inside my body and use my body to sustain its life against my wishes, then yes. We do not permit any born human beings to do this. Why should fetuses have rights that no born human beings have?


Well whose fault is it that the child is there in the first place? outside of cases of rape, of course. It was the consent of 2 people having sex, knowing the possibilites that could arise. The foetus does not have a choice, it does not willingly or knowingly enter the womb, it is there because of the choices of the parents.
Vetalia
03-11-2006, 18:22
Actually, the basis for abortion is that a human person has the right to control what happens to their own body. Whether or not a fetus is a human person is beside the point, since no human person has the right take my body without my consent.

Well, couldn't it be argued that by deciding to have the child, or by having sex, you effectively consented to allowing that child to take your body?
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:23
Well whose fault is it that the child is there in the first place? outside of cases of rape, of course. It was the consent of 2 people having sex, knowing the possibilites that could arise. The foetus does not have a choice, it does not willingly or knowingly enter the womb, it is there because of the choices of the parents.
None of which is remotely relavent.

If I choose to drive a car, I take the risk that I will be involved in an accident. Even if the accident is my fault, however, I still have the right to medical treatment.

It doesn't matter who is "at fault" when it comes to the pregnancy. All that matters is that a woman has the right to decide how her own body participates in reproduction. Just as a man has the right to decide how his body does so.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:24
Well, couldn't it be argued that by deciding to have the child, or by having sex, you effectively consented to allowing that child to take your body?
If you decide to have the child, then yes, you have consented to have the child.

Deciding to have sex, however, is not consent to have a child.
Vetalia
03-11-2006, 18:26
If I choose to drive a car, I take the risk that I will be involved in an accident. Even if the accident is my fault, however, I still have the right to medical treatment.

Yes, but there's no living things created in a car accident; if you were to get in an accident and somehow grow another arm or organ, it would be similar because it would involve an unwanted addition to your body that you have to support. Otherwise, they're not really the same thing.
Brigligate
03-11-2006, 18:26
None of which is remotely relavent.

If I choose to drive a car, I take the risk that I will be involved in an accident. Even if the accident is my fault, however, I still have the right to medical treatment.

It doesn't matter who is "at fault" when it comes to the pregnancy. All that matters is that a woman has the right to decide how her own body participates in reproduction. Just as a man has the right to decide how his body does so.

So essentially, humanism is an accident...then what rights to you have to live? who gave you those rights?
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:27
Right.
So, everybody who is in need of an organ transplant, say, a kidney, is automatically entitled to one of yours, right? Otherwise you'd be putting your right to determine what happens to your body before the right of another person to live.

That arguments has been debunked so many times, it's really getting kind of boring now.

Yeah and there's no difference between killing a human and organ transplant. :rolleyes:
Vetalia
03-11-2006, 18:27
Deciding to have sex, however, is not consent to have a child.

You consent to the risk of having the child through having sex, correct?

Anyone with half a brain should know that there is always a risk, however, infinitesimally small, that safer sex and contraceptive practices may not prevent a pregnancy. It's an inherent risk when you decide to have sex.
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:28
None of which is remotely relavent.

If I choose to drive a car, I take the risk that I will be involved in an accident. Even if the accident is my fault, however, I still have the right to medical treatment.

It doesn't matter who is "at fault" when it comes to the pregnancy. All that matters is that a woman has the right to decide how her own body participates in reproduction. Just as a man has the right to decide how his body does so.

I believe most women are hugely biased at this because many of them has done abortions. That's why they never want to admit that they killed a person.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:29
Yes, but there's no living things created in a car accident; if you were to get in an accident and somehow grow another arm or organ, it would be similar because it would involve an unwanted addition to your body that you have to support. Otherwise, they're not really the same thing.
You seem to miss the point of what I was saying.

Consenting to have sex does not equate to consenting to have a child. That was the point. Realizing that one's actions carry certain risks does not equate to consenting to endure those risks with no medical treatment.

I know there is a chance I will break my leg if I ski. That doesn't mean I "consent" to having my leg broken and not getting a cast or aspirin for the pain. It means I realize there is a risk, and if I break my leg I will deal with it.

When I have sex, I consent to the possibility that I may become pregnant. I do not necessarily consent to REMAIN pregnant or to give birth. If I become pregnant, I retain the right to decide what next steps to take.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:31
I believe most women are hugely biased at this because many of them has done abortions. That's why they never want to admit that they killed a person.
Well, you are right that about 1/3 women will have an abortion at some time during her life. That's not "most" women, but it's a lot of women.

However, many of us are perfectly comfortable with the notion of killing a fetus, even if we haven't had an abortion ourselves. I don't happen to believe a fetus is a person, but even if I did I would still support abortion rights and would still choose to have an abortion if I became pregnant. The personhood of the fetus is beside the point, for me, and does not determine my views on the subject.
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:33
Well, you are right that about 1/3 women will have an abortion at some time during her life. That's not "most" women, but it's a lot of women.

However, many of us are perfectly comfortable with the notion of killing a fetus, even if we haven't had an abortion ourselves. I don't happen to believe a fetus is a person, but even if I did I would still support abortion rights and would still choose to have an abortion if I became pregnant. The personhood of the fetus is beside the point, for me, and does not determine my views on the subject.

Killing a "fetus". That's a nazi tactic actually. They were killing "jews".

When you produce new words for "human", "person", I guess it does strengthen your ability to fool yourself.
Vetalia
03-11-2006, 18:34
I know there is a chance I will break my leg if I ski. That doesn't mean I "consent" to having my leg broken and not getting a cast or aspirin for the pain. It means I realize there is a risk, and if I break my leg I will deal with it.

I might want to clarify that the only problem I have with abortion is when it is past, depending on the case at hand, the first or second trimester.

I feel that there are too many ethical issues involved with abortion that late in the pregnancy; I'm of the opinion that you should have to decide to abort early in the pregnancy because I consider it irresponsible and wrong to carry that child for a prolonged period of time and then decide to terminate it at the last moment. The ethical issues are just too great to allow that without more information and study of fetal development.

When I have sex, I consent to the possibility that I may become pregnant. I do not necessarily consent to REMAIN pregnant or to give birth. If I become pregnant, I retain the right to decide what next steps to take.

That's correct. I'm just interested in hearing the arguments from either side, so thanks.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:34
You consent to the risk of having the child through having sex, correct?
Having a child is not a consequence of sex. It is a consequence of pregnancy.

This is a crucial distinction. PREGNANCY is the possible outcome of sex. Having a child is only one of the many possible outcomes of pregnancy.

Indeed, most pregnancies do not lead to childbirth. The majority of pregnancies terminate before birth, even if you don't count any medical or artificial abortions.


Anyone with half a brain should know that there is always a risk, however, infinitesimally small, that safer sex and contraceptive practices may not prevent a pregnancy. It's an inherent risk when you decide to have sex.
Yes, pregnancy is a risk to heterosexual sex. Pregnancy is not childbirth. Childbirth is only one of many possible outcomes of pregnancy.
The Alma Mater
03-11-2006, 18:36
Killing a "fetus". That's a nazi tactic actually. They were killing "jews".

When you produce new words for "human", "person", I guess it does strengthen your ability to fool yourself.

Depends on how well you can defend the position that the other is not a person.
If you can explain to me in a clear way why a clump of cells with no thoughts or feelings is equivalent to a human being I am very interested.

If not, I adhere to the view that an embryo might become a person someday, but isn't yet.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:36
Killing a "fetus". That's a nazi tactic actually. They were killing "jews".

When you produce new words for "human", "person", I guess it does strengthen your ability to fool yourself.
You happen to define personhood differently than I do. I happen to believe that a single human cell is not the same as a human child. I happen to believe that a pre-viable fetus is not the same as a human child. This is because my definition of personhood relies on the presence of certain functions and structures which are not present until later stages of development.

If you would like to claim that a Jewish person is the same as a single human cell, that's for you to argue.
Vetalia
03-11-2006, 18:38
Depends on how well you can defend the position that the other is not a person. If you can explain to me in a clear way why a clump of cells with no thoughts or feelings is equivalent to a human being I am very interested.

I don't. That's why I feel abortion law should be based on comprehensive scientific study of fetal and cognitive development rather than some arbitrary limit. If we know it is capable of thoughts and feelings, that point should be the beginning of legal protection for the child.

Of course, this is still a very difficult task given the complexity of the brain and the difficulty of determining thought or emotion.
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:39
You happen to define personhood differently than I do. I happen to believe that a single human cell is not the same as a human child. I happen to believe that a pre-viable fetus is not the same as a human child. This is because my definition of personhood relies on the presence of certain functions and structures which are not present until later stages of development.

If you would like to claim that a Jewish person is the same as a single human cell, that's for you to argue.

If you think that fetus is same as a single cell in your toe, that's for you to argue.
You should also note that they dont usually abort single cells. By the time pregnancy is noticed, it's usually much more than that.
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:41
Depends on how well you can defend the position that the other is not a person.
If you can explain to me in a clear way why a clump of cells with no thoughts or feelings is equivalent to a human being I am very interested.

If not, I adhere to the view that an embryo might become a person someday, but isn't yet.

Genetically he/she is a human. Whether one cell or a "clump".
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:42
If you think that fetus is same as a single cell in your toe, that's for you to argue.

As a biologist, I find that a hilarious statement.

No, a fertilized egg is not the same as a "toe cell." It is also not the same as a human child.


You should also note that they dont usually abort single cells. By the time pregnancy is noticed, it's usually much more than that.
The term "fetus" refers to a multicellular stage of development.
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:42
I don't. That's why I feel abortion law should be based on comprehensive scientific study of fetal and cognitive development rather than some arbitrary limit. If we know it is capable of thoughts and feelings, that point should be the beginning of legal protection for the child.

Of course, this is still a very difficult task given the complexity of the brain and the difficulty of determining thought or emotion.

Limits of thoughts...Hmm...maybe we can "terminate" people below certain IQ by that logic.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:43
[QUOTE=Nordligmark;11896462]Genetically he/she is a human. [/QUOTE[
A fetus is genetically human, yes. Whether or not it is a human person is a philosophical matter.
Bottle
03-11-2006, 18:44
I don't. That's why I feel abortion law should be based on comprehensive scientific study of fetal and cognitive development rather than some arbitrary limit. If we know it is capable of thoughts and feelings, that point should be the beginning of legal protection for the child.

Adult chimps are capable of more complex thoughts and feelings than human infants, according to every measure we currently possess. Does this apply at all to what you are saying?
Dempublicents1
03-11-2006, 18:46
:(
You know, i'm not for abortion, and i in no way shape or form support it... but what i'm wondering is why there is a double standard in this country. If a woman wants her unborn child killed, then thats fine, and there are no criminal charges, but if she is killed and the child dies, then it's a double murder?? abortion's basis is the fact that a foetus is not a human until it emerges from the womb, (which brings up partial-birth abortion, which i wont get into) and if that is the case, then how come she isnt charged, but if someone else does it they are?... all i'm asking for is consistency... either charge the mother for murder or dont charge the criminal for murder... morbid i know, but think about it:(

While the laws may not explicitly state it, such laws have only been used to convict of double murder in cases where the fetus was viable (ie. could survive outside the womb). Interestingly enough, the only instances in which a woman could legally get an abortion at this point, anywhere in the country, are for medical necessity or extreme defects in the fetus. As such, there is no "double standard."
The Alma Mater
03-11-2006, 18:48
If you think that fetus is same as a single cell in your toe, that's for you to argue.
You should also note that they dont usually abort single cells. By the time pregnancy is noticed, it's usually much more than that.

Indeed it is. But still much less than something that can feel or think. Much less developed than a plant or earthworm, and I doubt you are abhorred by the thought of killing those.

However, once it has obtained the ability to feel and think - which is both well before the pregnancy ends and well after the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for non-medical reasons- I believe that abortion *is* the killing of a person.
Gronde
03-11-2006, 18:49
The way I look at it, there are more important things to debate rather than abortion... you know, such as things that will affect your every day life. Oh, but who am I kidding? We can't have that.

At any rate, this should be getting very emotional and even more hostile very soon. *hands out machine guns and flame throwers... makes popcorn*

^_^
The Alma Mater
03-11-2006, 18:51
Limits of thoughts...Hmm...maybe we can "terminate" people below certain IQ by that logic.

Depends. Do you believe that a human with such severe braininjuries that all he can do is dribble deserves more rights than a bright dog ?
We are after all allowed to terminate that dog.
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:51
The term "fetus" refers to a multicellular stage of development.

Ok...

As a biologist, I find that a hilarious statement.

No, a fertilized egg is not the same as a "toe cell." It is also not the same as a human child.


A a fertilized egg is to a child as a child is to an adult. We dont terminate children because they dont have "adult responsibility" or capabilities. When you abort, you are interfering with their development.
Grave_n_idle
03-11-2006, 18:52
Limits of thoughts...Hmm...maybe we can "terminate" people below certain IQ by that logic.

What 'rights' do you believe are (or should be) allowed to a human body, fully mature and adult - but with the central nervous system (including the brain) removed?

Do the rights belong to the 'meat'... or to the brain?

(If it helps - imagine that we have the science to successfully transplant a brain, and the central nervous system and brain of our 'question' above, are now housed ina second body.)
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:53
A fetus is genetically human, yes. Whether or not it is a human person is a philosophical matter.

And philosopy is a subjective matter. The babies philosopy may be different than yours so you got no legal rights on terminating them.
The Alma Mater
03-11-2006, 18:54
As a fertilized egg is to a child as a child is to an adult. We dont terminate children because they dont have "adult responsibility" or capabilities. When you abort, you are interfering with their development.

The same is true when you do not allow a spermcell to fertilise an egg.
Are all woman that are not pregnant murderers ? Are all men committing genocide, since an ejaculation does contain slightly more than one sperm ?
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 18:57
Indeed it is. But still much less than something that can feel or think. Much less developed than a plant or earthworm, and I doubt you are abhorred by the thought of killing those.


It's not same. An earthworm will never develop into a lovely person next door.


However, once it has obtained the ability to feel and think - which is both well before the pregnancy ends and well after the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed for non-medical reasons- I believe that abortion *is* the killing of a person.

When you interfere with their natural development cycle, it *is* indirect killing. The abortion argument is similar to:

Hey I didnt not let them eat but it's not my fault if they starved.
Grave_n_idle
03-11-2006, 18:58
When you interfere with their natural development cycle, it *is* indirect killing. The abortion argument is similar to:

Hey I didnt not let them eat but it's not my fault if they starved.

It would only be parallel if the person you were starving was setting up residence inside your body.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 18:59
Killing a "fetus". That's a nazi tactic actually. They were killing "jews".

When you produce new words for "human", "person", I guess it does strengthen your ability to fool yourself.

Wait, this took a minute for me to pick up on, but Ny Nordland compared Bottle to Nazis?
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 19:00
Depends. Do you believe that a human with such severe braininjuries that all he can do is dribble deserves more rights than a bright dog ?
We are after all allowed to terminate that dog.

Do you believe people who's IQ is below 90 should be killed because they are such an "inconvenience" to us?
Grave_n_idle
03-11-2006, 19:02
Do you believe people who's IQ is below 90 should be killed because they are such an "inconvenience" to us?

Why don't you answer my similar question about the body with no brain tissue?
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 19:02
What 'rights' do you believe are (or should be) allowed to a human body, fully mature and adult - but with the central nervous system (including the brain) removed?

Do the rights belong to the 'meat'... or to the brain?

(If it helps - imagine that we have the science to successfully transplant a brain, and the central nervous system and brain of our 'question' above, are now housed ina second body.)

Why is it so hard for you people to understand that your analogies are rather moronic?

Will a "a human body, fully mature and adult - but with the central nervous system (including the brain) removed" develop into a ""a human body, fully mature and adult"? Of course not. So it's not same as killing a baby who'll develop into a child and an adult naturally.
Dempublicents1
03-11-2006, 19:05
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that your analogies are rather moronic?

Will a "a human body, fully mature and adult - but with the central nervous system (including the brain) removed?" develop into a ""a human body, fully mature and adult"? Of course not. So it's not same as killing a baby who'll develop into a child and an adult naturally.

So your argument is one from potential.

Of course, according to your argument, we should let 3-year olds vote, because they might be old enough and mature enough to do so at some point. I should be able to collect social security right now because I am likely to live to be elderly, and then be elligible.

In fact, we are all dead, because we will one day be dead. So we should all be treated like the dead.
Grave_n_idle
03-11-2006, 19:07
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that your analogies are rather moronic?

Will a "a human body, fully mature and adult - but with the central nervous system (including the brain) removed" develop into a ""a human body, fully mature and adult"? Of course not. So it's not same as killing a baby who'll develop into a child and an adult naturally.

I'll be reporting you for flaming, if you cannot manage to keep a civil tongue in your head.

I didn't ask a question about analogies. I asked you for an answer about real-world instances.

Regardless of possible parallels or analogies... in the case of the very real body-without-brains, is it 'killing' to stop supporting the meat? Is the person in the body, or the brain?
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 19:07
So your argument is one from potential.

Of course, according to your argument, we should let 3-year olds vote, because they might be old enough and mature enough to do so at some point. I should be able to collect social security right now because I am likely to live to be elderly, and then be elligible.

In fact, we are all dead, because we will one day be dead. So we should all be treated like the dead.

Yeah being allowed to live and beling allowed to vote are same issues. :rolleyes:

Actually according to my argument you should fly over purple hills singing chineese anthem.
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 19:09
I'll be reporting you for flaming, if you cannot manage to keep a civil tongue in your head.

I didn't ask a question about analogies. I asked you for an answer about real-world instances.

Regardless of possible parallels or analogies... in the case of the very real body-without-brains, is it 'killing' to stop supporting the meat? Is the person in the body, or the brain?

So we should decide "on the moment." If fetus is "brainless" now, it is same as your example. By that stupid logic, we can kill anyone who's unconscious. They might regain consciousness in the future but we arent thinking about future, are we?
Nordligmark
03-11-2006, 19:13
Let's face it. Many women kill babies. Many men consent. The make up silly arguments not to accept that they killed a person. Denial is a natural psychological reaction.
The Alma Mater
03-11-2006, 19:15
So we should decide "on the moment." If fetus is "brainless" now, it is same as your example. By that stupid logic, we can kill anyone who's unconscious. They might regain consciousness in the future but we arent thinking about future, are we?

Last time I checked when someone is unconcious the brain is still functioning.
Of course, if the conciousness is gone then we do not need to kill that individual. It is in fact what we call dead already.
Kalashnikov Free State
03-11-2006, 19:18
hey, you know what they say


the GOOD DIE YOUNG


Kalashnikov Free State
Kunuckastan Region
Grave_n_idle
03-11-2006, 19:18
So we should decide "on the moment." If fetus is "brainless" now, it is same as your example. By that stupid logic, we can kill anyone who's unconscious. They might regain consciousness in the future but we arent thinking about future, are we?

You still wriggle out of answering the question?

What logic? I have applied no 'logic' - I have simply asked a question.

If you are spotting logic here, it must be your own mind playing tricks on you.

Question - once again: Is the 'person' in the brain, or the body?
Grave_n_idle
03-11-2006, 19:19
Let's face it. Many women kill babies. Many men consent. The make up silly arguments not to accept that they killed a person. Denial is a natural psychological reaction.

Let's face it... people kill babies... and children... and adults. We are a murderous breed. Why get our panties in a bunch about the sperm-splats in someone's uterus, when there are REAL children being tortured and killed in the REAL world?
Barefoot and Topless
03-11-2006, 19:27
Ok, Nordligmark, thank you captain fucking obvious for making a blanket retarded statement.


Anyway... this abortion issue is impossible to debate for longer than about 5 minutes. Either you like it or you don't, and neither party is going to change their mind. It's pointless to argue something like this...I mean, what are you getting out of it other than self gratification? Everyone wants to let everyone else know how important their point of view is when in reality you're really just filling your own ears.

That being said, how is it any of anybody's business what someone else wants to do with their body/life ? No matter how you feel on the subject, what makes you think that you have any opinion in the matter? Leave it to a bunch of Americans to liberty up and assume that because they have 'freedom of speech' they have the right dictate others lives based on how they were reared.

Anyway, I agree with abortion. If I concieve on accident, married, in a relationship, single or whatever, and I can't wholly provide for the chlid in question, I will make the choice to terminate the pregnancy at the earliest possible time. Why would I want to give birth to a child that wouldn't have the proper chance at life? Why would I waste a human life on my poor decision? If you really care about the zygote in question, you will do what is necessary to give that child the best possible life. If that choice is no life vs. poverty and an unorthodox parenting situation then so be it. I will say that abortion is not birth control, and I do not agree with people who selfishly get multiple abortions because they're too dense to pay the fucking 30 dollars each month for the pill, or the 180 for an IUD (which may last up to ten years in some cases), the 9.99 for the pack of condoms at wal-mart, or just lacking common sense to NOT HAVE SEX if you're ovulating.

Thank god I live in a world where people are too stupid to not have babies. Accidents happen, but there's no reason to be careless.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 19:38
I believe most women are hugely biased at this because many of them has done abortions. That's why they never want to admit that they killed a person.
I've never had an abortion. I hope to never be in a position to make one.

However, given my lifestyle, it would be irresponsable of me not to have an abortion if I found myself unexpectedly pregnant.
Dempublicents1
03-11-2006, 19:43
Yeah being allowed to live and beling allowed to vote are same issues. :rolleyes:

They are both rights associated with meeting certain criteria.

Your logic is that, if a zygote might eventually meet all of the criteria to be considered a living human person, it should be considered one right now. This is logically equivalent to saying that a child should be considered an adult right now because he might one day be one. A young adult should be considered elderly right now because she may one day be elderly. All human beings should be considered dead right now because they will all be dead one day.


Last time I checked when someone is unconcious the brain is still functioning.
Of course, if the conciousness is gone then we do not need to kill that individual. It is in fact what we call dead already.

Indeed. When the brain stops functioning, the person is declared brain-dead and can be removed from life support. Their organs can be harvested and used for others, if they are organ donors or their family has consented.
Barefoot and Topless
03-11-2006, 19:52
You know, to solve the 'IS THE ZYGOTE A PEOPLE LOL' argument, here you go: if you kill the thing, it wont even know. It had had no idea that it was alive, it will have no idea that it is dead.
Fartsniffage
03-11-2006, 19:53
None of the individuals in your story had the right to stay alive or be treated by their own free will. Not the patients nor their parents. How is that a strawman? In fact, the strawman is you example because it was not a 'choice' at all, the government determined for them and that is EXACTLY what you are arguing against, letting the government tell you what you can and cannot do. Who then is using the strawman? You concede that you don't really want your government to tell you when and where to die and then take the power of you being allowed to make decisions for yourself away from you...

You contended that conjoined twins were required to share organs:

How does the fact remain? You keep saying no born person has those rights ,to force you to share your organs, I showed a scenario when a born person does have a right to share your organs, when two people are using the same organ. It is not a side issue, it is a direct answer to you absolute statement that no born person has those rights. I've shown that statement to be erroneous directly, not a technicality.

I proved that they aren't. A fact supported by the highest court in the UK:

You aren't forced to. The weaker twin died.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/europe/1272144.stm

You then demanded and example of a time when conjoined twins were seperated and one of them treated for a while before it was saved:

They never did it when they thought the twin was treatable. Find one instance of them separating a twin that they thought they could treat for a few months and then save both patients... Then your point would stand, but you tried to compare apples to oranges here.

I provided an example that fit your fairly difficult criteria exactly which you ignored:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5255982.stm

This do?

You change the goalposts and then when I can still prove you wrong you resort to some mindless blathering about the government intefering in peoples lives, something that has nothing to do with the proofs you demanded. That is why I say you are building a strawman, you can't counter the facts I have presented so you use an argument I've not used at any point in this thread, say I have and then try to prove it wrong. The very definition of a strawman wouldn't you agree?

Edit: Incidently, what have the government got to do with the case involving the Maltese twins anyway? I was the doctors that took the parents to court, not the state. The only government involvement was that they provided the courts.
Rainbowwws
03-11-2006, 20:20
Sluts make the best moms
I am trolling.
IL Ruffino
03-11-2006, 21:03
Silly.
Vetalia
03-11-2006, 21:17
Adult chimps are capable of more complex thoughts and feelings than human infants, according to every measure we currently possess. Does this apply at all to what you are saying?

I strongly oppose testing on chimpanzees, if that's what you mean.
Neo Bretonnia
03-11-2006, 21:41
Let's face it. Many women kill babies. Many men consent. The make up silly arguments not to accept that they killed a person. Denial is a natural psychological reaction.

That, my friends, is what's called hitting the nail on the head.
Grave_n_idle
03-11-2006, 21:46
That, my friends, is what's called hitting the nail on the head.

That, my friend, is called an appeal to emotion, and it doesn't work for a number of reasons... not least of which being that a 'foetus' can't objectively be shown to be 'a human life'.

For me, it falls down much more on the fact that pro-life lobbies only care about a uterus that has a foetus in it, and couldn't give a monkeys once it is empty... and they act the same way about the foetus itself... once the screaming lump is taking breathes, who cares... so - it'll turn up in a dumpster in a week, but at least we FORCED that thirteen year old to carry the thing to term. That'll teach her.
Dakini
03-11-2006, 21:46
That, my friends, is what's called hitting the nail on the head.
No it isn't.
Neo Bretonnia
03-11-2006, 21:51
That, my friend, is called an appeal to emotion, and it doesn't work for a number of reasons... not least of which being that a 'foetus' can't objectively be shown to be 'a human life'.


Well, the problem with that is that your argument can't be objectively proven. Anything that "proves" a fetus isn't human could conceivably be argued to apply to a human in some state of handicap.


For me, it falls down much more on the fact that pro-life lobbies only care about a uterus that has a foetus in it, and couldn't give a monkeys once it is empty... and they act the same way about the foetus itself... once the screaming lump is taking breathes, who cares... so - it'll turn up in a dumpster in a week, but at least we FORCED that thirteen year old to carry the thing to term. That'll teach her.

I don't think this is fair to say. On some level it dumps the responsibility on them to take care of a responsibility that by all rights already belongs to someone. Are you suggesting that a protester only has the right to protest if they have a better idea, or the ability to fix it themselves? If so, then there are a lot of Environmentalists that need silencing.
Neo Bretonnia
03-11-2006, 21:51
No it isn't.

Is that supposed to be a point?
Free Soviets
03-11-2006, 21:54
A fetus is genetically human, yes. Whether or not it is a human person is a philosophical matter.

though not really a difficult one. it clearly doesn't have full personhood, and the only people who claim oherwise do so because they want to hold that "life begins at conception." but i cannot think of anyone whose moral sense actually tells them that blastocysts are persons in any relevant sense. in fact we would probably find such a person to be something of a monster. because that would mean that if they ever found themselves in a burning building and had time to save either a 5 year old child or a petri dish holding two blastocyst-americans, they would choose the petri dish every time.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 21:55
Is that supposed to be a point?

"Is that?"
"Yes, it is."
"Well it's not."
"Yeah, well you're ignorant."
"And you're a Nazi/Female oppresser." (depending upon who's turn it is)

This could go on for days, no?
Cabra West
03-11-2006, 21:57
Sure. If a conjoined twin is using your liver with you, you can't exactly just 'cut them off’ and pretend like they didn’t have a right to it as well.

A late response, but here it is :

If conjoined twins share a liver, the liver doesn't belong to just one of them. My body, however, belongs undisputably to me.

That being the case, it is still something of a standart to remove the weaker of the conjoined twins. The decision rests with the parents, of course.
Grave_n_idle
03-11-2006, 21:58
Well, the problem with that is that your argument can't be objectively proven. Anything that "proves" a fetus isn't human could conceivably be argued to apply to a human in some state of handicap.


And? If you can demonstrate to me someone in whom the handicapping is so complete that it is not possible to determine if they are 'a human life', I'll agree with you.

There is a disorder in which a 'baby' is born entirely without a brain. The top of the neural 'tube' never completes... the 'brain' is either almost entirely, or actually entirely missing, and the head is left open.

The body can theoretically function. But, I wouldn't say it was a person. What do you think we should do with such a body?



I don't think this is fair to say. On some level it dumps the responsibility on them to take care of a responsibility that by all rights already belongs to someone. Are you suggesting that a protester only has the right to protest if they have a better idea, or the ability to fix it themselves? If so, then there are a lot of Environmentalists that need silencing.

I'm not dumping a responsibility on anyone - quite the opposite. The minute you take a step inside the uterus, you claim that responsibility for yourself. And yet - the pro-life movement neatly sidesteps the true ramifications of their actions - as evidenced by the fact that there are still children today, in orphanages.

You have no jurisdiction in MY body, or the body of any other person. If you choose to FORCE your jurisdiction over the CONTENTS of my body, you damn well better be prepared to accept responsibility for those contents.
Neo Bretonnia
03-11-2006, 22:01
though not really a difficult one. it clearly doesn't have full personhood, and the only people who claim oherwise do so because they want to hold that "life begins at conception." but i cannot think of anyone whose moral sense actually tells them that blastocysts are persons in any relevant sense. in fact we would probably find such a person to be something of a monster. because that would mean that if they ever found themselves in a burning building and had time to save either a 5 year old child or a petri dish holding two blastocyst-americans, they would choose the petri dish every time.

The problem is that people are trying way too hard to make this a black & white picture. Is a blastocyst a fully functional human being? Of course it isn't. But it's a human blastocyst, and that means something.

Where does one draw the line between the point at which the fetus is human and when it hasn't yet reached that pinnacle? The laws in several states try, but who can really say? You might say it's when the heart starts to beat. Someone else might say it's when the brain begins to function, still someone else might agrue that the fertilized egg is enough. We have a pretty good idea when these things happen, and the technology to even test some of them, but do we REALLY know for sure?

I've always felt that judges and politicians who legislate for specific points at which life begins are some of the bravest people around, in a way... Because they're so absolutely positive that they're right, that they're willing to put their soul on the line because they're so certain the line they've chosen is a safe one.

The burning building analogy isn't going to prove anything. It creates a scenario so extraordinary as to be completely non-applicable to this thought process. May as well ask what the person would do if they had to either have an abortion or let the world be blown up by aliens.
Dinaverg
03-11-2006, 22:06
A late response, but here it is :

If conjoined twins share a liver, the liver doesn't belong to just one of them. My body, however, belongs undisputably to me.

That being the case, it is still something of a standart to remove the weaker of the conjoined twins. The decision rests with the parents, of course.

Well, concievably you coould remove a lobe of the liver and it would regrow into a whole one...
Free Soviets
03-11-2006, 22:06
Where does one draw the line between the point at which the fetus is human and when it hasn't yet reached that pinnacle?

at birth, if not a bit later.