|
Abortion (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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? :rolleyes: |
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 :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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"). |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| 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 :p |
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? |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| 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. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| 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 :p |
That makes NO sense.
So a baby is not a person? Nor is a child? How about a Teenager? |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ UD |
| 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. |
|
|
| venomX |
| 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. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| 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. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Ok, I'm going to have to go all sorts of c0r here, but/
 |
|
|
|
|
