TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Abortion
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Beatflux I keep my argument short and to the point: Would you allow me to have parts of your body in order to sustain my life? Why or why not?

If it was something I could live without and you couldn't live without; yes. If it merely meant I would be inconvenienced for 9 months, after which I'd be none the worse for the wear; definitely yes, especially if it was my fault you were in that situation to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono none the worse for the wear; .

you're kidding right? only a guy could express an opinion like that!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you're kidding right? only a guy could express an opinion like that!

Yeah, I am a guy, but considering the overwhelming majority of women have little or no long term after effects from pregnancy, I'm not sure what you're inferring. Now, if women consistently came away disfigured or with chronic illness or injury, I can see where you're coming from.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Yeah, I am a guy, but considering the overwhelming majority of women have little or no long term after effects from pregnancy, I'm not sure what you're inferring. Now, if women consistently came away disfigured or with chronic illness or injury, I can see where you're coming from.

tell that to all of those with torn vaginas, or weight they just cant get rid of, deterioration of the boobies, post natal depression, stretch marks or scars from c sections, or the numerous issues that occur during pregnancy that can endanger their lives.

either way it doesn't really bother me, no matter how "correct" you are in the semantics. A foetus is not a human being according to the law and abortions are legal, and that's all I really care about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN tell that to all of those with torn vaginas, or weight they just cant get rid of, deterioration of the boobies, post natal depression, stretch marks or scars from c sections, or the numerous issues that occur during pregnancy that can endanger their lives. either way it doesn't really bother me, no matter how "correct" you are in the semantics. A foetus is not a human being according to the law and abortions are legal, and that's all I really care about.

The problem is when is it not a foetus any more and an actual child inside? Considering that people have been born at 22 weeks (actual record being 21 weeks & 5 days gestation), this line may be set at a point in time where people still get abortions.

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 The problem is when is it not a foetus any more and an actual child inside? Considering that people have been born at 22 weeks (actual record being 21 weeks & 5 days gestation), this line may be set at a point in time where people still get abortions.

honestly, i really REALLY don't care. the doctors + government have drawn the line when it is/is not acceptable. people can argue til theyre blue in the face regarding whether that is a proper place to put the line, but as long as there is a reasonable amount of time for the woman to terminate her pregnancy, i don't care. im not interested in the semantics of brain stems or pain receptors or fingers and toes.

if the person responsible for that child does not wish to carry it to term (for whatever reason) i will always support a woman's right to choose over the supposed rights of a few cells. and i find men telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies borders on the offensive.

But you feel that taking away the rights of an individual to life just becuase your responsible for that life and it inconveniences you, somehow justifies that you can kill a child. It's not men telling you what you can do with your bodies it's people telling you what you can do with another persons body. I mean after all you yourself are just a few cells, when compared to the total amount of cells in the world. With this reasoning lifeguards aren't responsible for negligent deaths becuase they weren't paying attention and they were playing video games. Or a firefighter can simply pass by your room when your house is burning down becuase it would inconvenience him.

By what you state you show negligent disregard for human life based off the assumption that the person your killing isn't really a person but a glob of cells. Your logic and (anyone who agrees with you) is flawed. It's not the womans right anyways to get an abortion it's the child's right and since it cannot make choices on it's own it's up to the justice system to fight for said individual.

The first day you decide to have sex your you are responsible for all outcomes of that activity. If you get AIDs from someone it's not their fault it's yours. If you suffer from some mental abnormality after having sex it's your fault. If you have a baby its your fault, live with it, the father might have a say as well considering it's just as much his child as yours.

The very second the egg is fertilized life begins, I don't care what your argument is, I'm not a religious zealot. Common sense says that if life results from a process the process is part of "life". If the process is part of "life", the process is "life". There for by the process of anaylitcal induction we conclude that when the process starts "life" starts.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD But you feel that taking away the rights of an individual to life just becuase your responsible for that life and it inconveniences you, somehow justifies that you can kill a child. It's not men telling you what you can do with your bodies it's people telling you what you can do with another persons body.

a foetus is not a person.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD I mean after all you yourself are just a few cells, when compared to the total amount of cells in the world. With this reasoning lifeguards aren't responsible for negligent deaths becuase they weren't paying attention and they were playing video games. Or a firefighter can simply pass by your room when your house is burning down becuase it would inconvenience him.

i suggest you go to school and take "debating 101" coz that makes NO sense.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD By what you state you show negligent disregard for human life based off the assumption that the person your killing isn't really a person but a glob of cells.

youre right. i couldnt give a shit about the foetus.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Your logic and (anyone who agrees with you) is flawed. It's not the womans right anyways to get an abortion

wrong. and roe V wade and all other legal restrictions in liberal democracies agree with me.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD it's the child's right and since it cannot make choices on it's own it's up to the justice system to fight for said individual.

nonsense. that's YOUR interpretation. and since when has the justice system made a habit of standing up for individuals that cant stand up for themselves? the foetus has no rights before (insert week here) so you and all your other paternalists can suffer under what this justice system states: foetuses are not individuals and a woman has the right to abort if she wants.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD The first day you decide to have sex your you are responsible for all outcomes of that activity.

yes, and having an abortion is one of those responsibilities.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD If you get AIDs from someone it's not their fault it's yours. If you suffer from some mental abnormality after having sex it's your fault. If you have a baby its your fault, live with it, the father might have a say as well considering it's just as much his child as yours.

irrelevent non sequiturs.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD The very second the egg is fertilized life begins,

yes, and the second the doctor with the drugs or special vacuum cleaner gets to work, life ends.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Common sense says that if life results from a process the process is part of "life". If the process is part of "life", the process is "life". There for by the process of anaylitcal induction we conclude that when the process stats "life" starts.

again, i dont care. i really dont care when "life" starts. i care about a woman's choice to control her body. and so do the courts. unlucky.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN a foetus is not a person.

Typical, unoriginal, liberal argument for justifying killing the fetus.

So if it's not a person, then what is it? A Giraffe?

I'm an Atheist. I hold no puritanical views on life. But I'm not so delusional that I don't know that when a woman gets pregnant, she's begun the start of a new human life inside of her.

That being said, I've already stated why I still think that abortion is necessary in this world. But please; Saying that you're NOT squashing out a human life in the process is disingenuous and self-serving.

Own up to what abortion is at least, if you have to go there.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So if it's not a person, then what is it? A Giraffe?

Maybe a bit blunt, but a good question none the less.

What is it that you are killing/aborting/terminating when an abortion is carried out?

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Typical, unoriginal, liberal argument for justifying killing the fetus.

im happy to be a liberal so throwing it in my face means nothing to me. and im not using it as "justification" for anything. i dont need any justification other than i prioritise the needs and desires of the mother over the "rights" of a semi-formed mass of cells and tissue. the legal or biological "status" of the unborn baby is immaterial to me.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So if it's not a person, then what is it? A Giraffe?

its a biological entity that has the possibility of becoming a person.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Own up to what abortion is at least, if you have to go there.

well really, i dont care if its a person or not, im just stating that if a foetus was a person it wouldnt be called a foetus now would it? it'd be called a person

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What is it that you are killing/aborting/terminating when an abortion is carried out?

doesn't matter and i don't care (but it certainly isnt a "person").

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well really, i dont care if its a person or not, im just stating that if a foetus was a person it wouldnt be called a foetus now would it? it'd be called a person

Is an infant a "person?" How about a toddler, adolescent, teenager, senior citizen? A label designating developmental state determines if a "thing" is a member of a species now?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Maybe a bit blunt, but a good question none the less. What is it that you are killing/aborting/terminating when an abortion is carried out?

People who try to claim that a fetus is not a human life when they promote abortion are usually trying to justify it morally and often spiritually to themselves, when really the best thing you can do for yourself is to be HONEST about what you're doing, and meet the issue head on. You're not fooling anyone else anyway...YOURSELF INCLUDED, deep down inside.

I've had to go through an abortion with a former g/f when I was younger and I LOATHED every minute of it. I hated myself, I hated her for her role in it, and I just generally hated what we were doing. It's been enough incentive ever since on my part to be DAMN CAREFUL from now on, and to thoroughly talk about birth control BEFORE I stick it in her.

I wouldn't call abortion comparable to murdering a fully grown human. But, you are snuffing out a life before it had a chance to run it's own course, and for that, you have to accept and feel SOMETHING. You're not totally off the hook just because it's still a tiny, not yet fully developed child who is ready to come out of the womb.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN its a biological entity that has the possibility of becoming a person.

Wrong. It's the beginning of a singular human life.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...well really, i dont care if its a person or not, im just stating that if a foetus was a person it wouldnt be called a foetus now would it? it'd be called a person

That makes NO sense.

So a baby is not a person? Nor is a child? How about a Teenager?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Is an infant a "person?" How about a toddler, adolescent, teenager, senior citizen? A label designating developmental state determines if a "thing" is a member of a species now?

Doh! Sorry. I posted redundantly before seeing your post.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Is an infant a "person?" How about a toddler, adolescent, teenager, senior citizen? A label designating developmental state determines if a "thing" is a member of a species now?

of course an infant is a person. it ceased to be a foetus and developed into an infant.

and in any case, this argument is completely moot to me. again, i do not care, not an iota, about the distinguishing characteristics or labels we're are going to be using to label a foetus. contrary to what donny believes, i have ZERO feelings for the process other than being fully supportive of a woman's right to choose.

foetus, child, collection of cells = whatever. use whichever term you think is most accurate for you. i honestly dont care. i support the willful destruction of human life while it remains in the womb according to laws in the US and australia. the semantics are meaningless to me, because i care about the mother, not the child.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Maybe a bit blunt, but a good question none the less. What is it that you are killing/aborting/terminating when an abortion is carried out?

Um, a fetus? Are you being intentionally dense?

That question is about as "good" as this one:

If you're not Abraham Lincoln, who are you? Homer Simpson?

Given your take on this issue, I'd be inclined to suspect the latter. You first claimed that "[a fetus] unquestionable has the capacity to be [human] and therefore its death is even more wrong." But in your response to Renegade, you started affixing lots of additional requirements beyond the mere "capacity to be human": that is, it must be "genetically unique," it must be the result of a "normal" reproductive process instead of an "artificial" one, it must be the result of a conscious decision of a parent, et cetera, et cetera...

What on Earth do any of those things have to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing something?

Look, regardless of what you want to call "it," that developing human life is the same thing whether it was the result of normal biological reproduction or some other artifice, whether it happens to have different or the same genetic structure as another, and so on.

Why should any of these factors even remotely play a part in whether or not it is wrong to prevent that life from developing fully? Why should a human life that was created "artificially" be less worthy of protection than one that wasn't? Why should a human life which isn't genetically unique be allowed to perish, while you consider it morally repugnant to kill one that is?

The underlying morality here is so half-baked I can't even begin to unravel its grotesqueries.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN again, i dont care. i really dont care when "life" starts. i care about a woman's choice to control her body. and so do the courts. unlucky.

A womans choice to control her body begins and ends with sex, the result of that choice should be of no control to the woman. You don't care when life starts so that makes it safe to assume that you don't care when it ends. Therefore everyone we have in prison for murder should be set free becuase they were only destroying life becuase they felt like it! Whats wrong with that? It's their choice, obviously the person they killed didn't please the person in some way and that makes it ok to kill them.

Now if you disagree with that then you actually do care when life starts. Since life starts right at the point of the initial process of forming a human, also know as sex, then the termination of that process at any time after the joining of the sperm to the egg constitutes murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, and since we have concluded that abortion is murder becuase it ends life and life is comprised of all stages of human development. Thus making abortion unlawful.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Um, a fetus? Are you being intentionally dense? That question is about as "good" as this one: If you're not Abraham Lincoln, who are you? Homer Simpson? Given your take on this issue, I'd be inclined to suspect the latter. You first claimed that "[a fetus] unquestionable has the capacity to be [human] and therefore its death is even more wrong." But in your response to Renegade, you started affixing lots of additional requirements beyond the mere "capacity to be human": that is, it must be "genetically unique," it must be the result of a "normal" reproductive process instead of an "artificial" one, it must be the result of a conscious decision of a parent, et cetera, et cetera... What on Earth do any of those things have to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing something? Look, regardless of what you want to call "it," that developing human life is the same thing whether it was the result of normal biological reproduction or some other artifice, whether it happens to have different or the same genetic structure as another, and so on. Why should any of these factors even remotely play a part in whether or not it is wrong to prevent that life from developing fully? Why should a human life that was created "artificially" be less worthy of protection than one that wasn't? Why should a human life which isn't genetically unique be allowed to perish, while you consider it morally repugnant to kill one that is? The underlying morality here is so half-baked I can't even begin to unravel its grotesqueries.

I'll go ahead and suggest that his point might be related more to not letting the individuals that 'took the decision' to have sex and are therefore 'responsible' for the outcome get away unscathed. The fact that there is a running theme of abortion being an 'easy out', might be due because, more than caring for the actual potential life that is lost, there is a resentment towards people being able to take the decision to not complicate their lives with a child they don't want.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD A womans choice to control her body begins and ends with sex,

says who? you? the courts and society in general disagree with you, and really, that's all that matters. you can argue til youre blue in the face, and us pro choice people still won't care as long as the law is on our side.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD You don't care when life starts so that makes it safe to assume that you don't care when it ends.

no, i dont care when life starts. it is completely immaterial to me. i care when a foetus is no longer a foetus, ie when it graduates to being a child.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Therefore everyone we have in prison for murder should be set free becuase they were only destroying life becuase they felt like it! Whats wrong with that? It's their choice, obviously the person they killed didn't please the person in some way and that makes it ok to kill them.

look kid, you're new here so i'll be nice. but you've gotta stop making (poor) retarded analogies which dont make any sense.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Now if you disagree with that then you actually do care when life starts.

no, i still dont care when life starts. it obviously starts at conception, ive never contended otherwise. what i do contend is that evacuating a womb when the foetus cannot think nor feel pain is no different on the morality scale (for me) than stepping on a spider. its really THAT simple. you can try and twist and turn with all of your semantic nonsense, and i still dont care.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Since life starts right at the point of the initial process of forming a human, also know as sex, then the termination of that process at any time after the joining of the sperm to the egg constitutes murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, and since we have concluded that abortion is murder becuase it ends life and life is comprised of all stages of human development. Thus making abortion unlawful.

wrong wrong wrong. what makes abortion "unlawful" is a statute that says "abortion is against the law". that is the only thing that makes anything "unlawful". as such, the statutes DONT say that, so abortion ISNT unlawful.

your definition of murder, "the unlawful killing of one human by another" is pointless, because "unlawful killing" does not, in any way, relate to the very lawful act of terminating a pregnancy.

Ok, I'm going to have to go all sorts of c0r here, but/

I'm with PKC on this one, a woman has and should have the right to choose whether to proceed with a pregnancy or not. There are many situations that would warrant the termination of a pregnancy such as the child as a result of rape example that has already been used.

I think that giving a woman the choice is what is important, regardless of YOUR moral stance on the matter, SHE should have the opportunity of choose. Some women would see it as wrong and not go through but some would see it as the only course of action left open to them. I highly doubt that any woman will go around having abortions for the hell of it. I think that for anyone, regardless of them being for or against abortion, deciding to have one would be one of the hardest decisions they would ever make.

The mention of a fathers right to also have a say in a termination raises an interesting point. If I was having a baby with someone and they decided to end the pregnancy and I didn't agree I would try to convince them otherwise and hope that she would see my point of view but in the end I would have to respect their right to decide what is going to happen to their body, because what right do I have to make a woman have a baby that she doesn't want to have.

Outlawing abortion is a completely ridiculous idea, all that would achieve is illegal abortions being carried out but untrained people in poor conditions. keeping abortion legal means that it is safer for the mother and that it can be regulated in so far as limitations in gestation after which a pregnancy can't be terminated.

The greatest problem with this issue is that every circumstance is different and it is impossible to cover ever circumstance in a law.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I'll go ahead and suggest that his point might be related more to not letting the individuals that 'took the decision' to have sex and are therefore 'responsible' for the outcome get away unscathed. The fact that there is a running theme of abortion being an 'easy out', might be due because, more than caring for the actual potential life that is lost, there is a resentment towards people being able to take the decision to not complicate their lives with a child they don't want.

I get that feeling as well, but if such petty resentment is at the root of his point of view then that's pretty contemptible itself. Honestly his position is so incoherent I just want more for the sheer entertainment value of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Um, a fetus? Are you being intentionally dense? That question is about as "good" as this one: If you're not Abraham Lincoln, who are you? Homer Simpson? Given your take on this issue, I'd be inclined to suspect the latter. You first claimed that "[a fetus] unquestionable has the capacity to be [human] and therefore its death is even more wrong." But in your response to Renegade, you started affixing lots of additional requirements beyond the mere "capacity to be human": that is, it must be "genetically unique," it must be the result of a "normal" reproductive process instead of an "artificial" one, it must be the result of a conscious decision of a parent, et cetera, et cetera...

I don't know, looking back on my statements, I think I've been very consistent...

I've said time and time again that once you have a genetically unique living being, of the human genetic variety, it's death is the death of a human. I also said that cloning was an artificial process that was completely voluntary that had issues of its own to deal with, but that is not the topic of this thread. And I never, never said that a fetus has the ability to be human, but that it is. The question that has muddied the water is when a "person" comes into existence being the defining factor of when an abortion is acceptable, even though "person," in my definition, is a cognitive construct.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; 1) if the pregnancy is the result of a consensual act, the pregnancy (consequence of the action) is the responsibility of the parents, and 2) whether or not you consider the developing "thing" to be a person, it is genetically human, a living being, and killing it, along with any other living thing for no valid reason, is wrong.

I'm also not quite sure what the Homer Simpson/Abraham Lincoln analogy has to do with anything. I've listed a set of terms that define human based on development. Each term still defines "human," but merely changes the time frame. Calling someone a completely different name designed to designate one human/person from another is not the same.

quote:

What on Earth do any of those things have to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing something? Look, regardless of what you want to call "it," that developing human life is the same thing whether it was the result of normal biological reproduction or some other artifice, whether it happens to have different or the same genetic structure as another, and so on. Why should any of these factors even remotely play a part in whether or not it is wrong to prevent that life from developing fully? Why should a human life that was created "artificially" be less worthy of protection than one that wasn't? Why should a human life which isn't genetically unique be allowed to perish, while you consider it morally repugnant to kill one that is? The underlying morality here is so half-baked I can't even begin to unravel its grotesqueries.

I'm completely missing the part where cloning/artificial reproductive methods entered the picture. I deferred that issue long ago when it was first presented. Again, I'm dealing with abortion in the case of normal sexual reproduction between consenting individuals. If you want to talk about the morality of cloning or of artificial reproduction methods, we can start another thread about that. I do think I have hinted pretty strongly that I'm against the killing of life in general, and even if its creation is "artificial," I'd be against its killing. The only time I ever said otherwise was when a pregnancy was forced, and even then I said I'd do everything I could to try to talk the woman into carrying the child to term.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.