Pro lifers like to imagine every abortion has a party with singing and dancing.Pro-Life as opposed to what? There's no such thing as "pro-abortion", I'd like to meet someone who actually enjoys terminating a pregnancy. The fact is, abortion is a last resort option that sometimes needs to be used.
Brendissimo35
The majority of people in the US Pro-Life for the first time in 15 years.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
More and more people are recognising this monstrosity we as a society have had the gall to call a fundamental right for thirty years. Eventually the Supreme Court will overturn Roe.
Theokhoth
What's worse is that in Canada, "life" is defined at birth. And when someone wants to challenge that definition, they are called out for being "against women's rights." Even when a bill is passed trying to help defined a foetus' life when its murdered along with its mother, its tossed around for being "too controversial."
Thats why in the real world abortions are legal. :| But yeah try and make it look like your attacks have accomplished anything. Besides when the debate gets drug down to the childish attacks level it's hard to not fall to that level. You and Mcjugga started the attacks first. Why try to be rational and logical with pretentious people attacking your viewpoint. Al my other rational and logical posts were ignored, it seems fly by attacks are how soem people like to operate why not stoop to their level in an effort to communicate with them.[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
The logic of pro-choice, everybody: When you can't defend child killing all you have to do is throw out the ad hominems! Again and again until the other guy gets bored and leaves!
The real world uses logic.
Theokhoth
Really? You said I live in a fantasy world when I--in my wholly mocking prose--said that, gasp, sex carries the risk of children. :|
Who started the attacks?
Well yeah in a magical fantasy world everyone would not make mistakes. But in the real world people make mistakes. Everything in this life is not sugar plums and lollipops. That's no personal attack, it is the truth. Sure it would be nice if nobody had sex until they were married and ready to provide for a child but the world does not work like that.Thats when you threw in the irresponsible nitwits line.
If the real world uses logic then, based on exactly what you posted, wouldn't everyone be pro-choice? ("logic of pro-choice")[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]The logic of pro-choice, everybody: When you can't defend child killing all you have to do is throw out the ad hominems! Again and again until the other guy gets bored and leaves! The real world uses logic.Theokhoth
The logic of pro-choice is what I described. . . . . .which isn't exactly logic.
No, the logic of pro-choice is either (or both) of two ideas: the first, that a fetus is not a human being, and so is not entitled to the same legal rights; the second, that a woman has a right to privacy.
Stop misrepresenting arguments.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="scorch-62"]If the real world uses logic then, based on exactly what you posted, wouldn't everyone be pro-choice? ("logic of pro-choice")chessmaster1989
The logic of pro-choice is what I described. . . . . .which isn't exactly logic.
No, the logic of pro-choice is either (or both) of two ideas: the first, that a fetus is not a human being, and so is not entitled to the same legal rights; the second, that a woman has a right to privacy.
Stop misrepresenting arguments.
QFT. Both very strong points.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]The logic of pro-choice, everybody: When you can't defend child killing all you have to do is throw out the ad hominems! Again and again until the other guy gets bored and leaves! The real world uses logic.TheokhothIf the real world uses logic then, based on exactly what you posted, wouldn't everyone be pro-choice? ("logic of pro-choice")The logic of pro-choice is what I described. . . . . .which isn't exactly logic.Logic of anyone is logic. Mindset is the word you should have used to get your point across.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="scorch-62"]If the real world uses logic then, based on exactly what you posted, wouldn't everyone be pro-choice? ("logic of pro-choice")chessmaster1989
The logic of pro-choice is what I described. . . . . .which isn't exactly logic.
No, the logic of pro-choice is either (or both) of two ideas: the first, that a fetus is not a human being, and so is not entitled to the same legal rights; the second, that a woman has a right to privacy.
Stop misrepresenting arguments.
Yes, the fetus isn't human at all. . . what's a human, you ask? Oh, nothing.
Women have a right to privacy, and as we all know, women can throw their children out on the street with absolutely no legal repercussions, because the woman has the right to privacy in her own home to do as she wants!
There is no logically consistent pro-choice argument that does not inevitably either dehumanise most living people or start defining animals and computers as human or eventually supports a type of eugenics. None whatsoever. This is when they try to be consistent. Hence, it is illogical.
"It's not human!" What's a human?
"It's the mother's right to privacy!" The mother can't privately kill her kids; why is the fetus different?
"Because the fetus isn't human!" What's human?
"Humans are special and deserve their rights!" What makes a human special?
"It's not alive!" It meets every biological definition of "alive" (and, for that matter, "human").
"You can't force your morals on people!" So why should I abide by your definition of what is human? Is that not a moral definition?
"Yeah, well, you just live in a fantasy world."
So where's the misrepresentation?
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
The logic of pro-choice is what I described. . . . . .which isn't exactly logic.
warbmxjohn
No, the logic of pro-choice is either (or both) of two ideas: the first, that a fetus is not a human being, and so is not entitled to the same legal rights; the second, that a woman has a right to privacy.
Stop misrepresenting arguments.
QFT. Both very strong points.You know, I'd always thought QFT was "quit ****ing talking" lol. Just looked it up when I saw your post (because that wouldn't have made a lot of sense in context)... turns out I was wrong :P.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Thats why in the real world abortions are legal. :| But yeah try and make it look like your attacks have accomplished anything. Besides when the debate gets drug down to the childish attacks level it's hard to not fall to that level. You and Mcjugga started the attacks first. Why try to be rational and logical with pretentious people attacking your viewpoint. Al my other rational and logical posts were ignored, it seems fly by attacks are how soem people like to operate why not stoop to their level in an effort to communicate with them.warbmxjohn
Really? You said I live in a fantasy world when I--in my wholly mocking prose--said that, gasp, sex carries the risk of children. :|
Who started the attacks?
Well yeah in a magical fantasy world everyone would not make mistakes. But in the real world people make mistakes. Everything in this life is not sugar plums and lollipops. That's no personal attack, it is the truth. Sure it would be nice if nobody had sex until they were married and ready to provide for a child but the world does not work like that.Thats when you threw in the irresponsible nitwits line.
The world doesn't work like "we can kill people to correct mistakes," either.
The irresponsible nitwits line came after your ad hominems.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
The logic of pro-choice is what I described. . . . . .which isn't exactly logic.
Theokhoth
No, the logic of pro-choice is either (or both) of two ideas: the first, that a fetus is not a human being, and so is not entitled to the same legal rights; the second, that a woman has a right to privacy.
Stop misrepresenting arguments.
Yes, the fetus isn't human at all. . . what's a human, you ask? Oh, nothing.
Putting words in my mouth which I neither said nor implied.
Women have a right to privacy, and as we all know, women can throw their children out on the street with absolutely no legal repercussions, because the woman has the right to privacy in her own home to do as she wants!
Nice straw man. A woman does have a right to privacy here, but must go about it in different ways (i.e. by giving the child up for adoption). In the case of a few-month-old fetus, it is removed from the body, and is not viable for survival anyway. There is a huge difference.
There is no logically consistent pro-choice argument that does not inevitably either dehumanise most living people or start defining animals and computers as human or eventually supports a type of eugenics. None whatsoever. This is when they try to be consistent. Hence, it is illogical.
Wrong. As shown by your above post, you are merely misrepresenting the logic of pro-choice arguments.
"It's not human!" What's a human?
In my opinion, a fetus becomes human when it is viable for survival outside of the womb.
"It's the mother's right to privacy!" The mother can't privately kill her kids; why is the fetus different?
You're using two very different words, there.
"Because the fetus isn't human!" What's human?
Lol, I love how you decided to repeat that argument. Refer to above post.
"Humans are special and deserve their rights!" What makes a human special?
Why do you argue that they do, then? It works both ways.
Anyway, I can answer this question regardless. Human beings have rights because these rights are necessary to a functioning society; for example, could you imagine a society functioning viably if stealing were allowed? Further rights are necessary to prevent abuse of power by authority. I could probably think of more, but you get the idea.
"It's not alive!" It meets every biological definition of "alive" (and, for that matter, "human").
Thanks for the evidence. oh wait... This is the problem of most pro-lifers-they make claims like these without any actual evidence.
"You can't force your morals on people!" So why should I abide by your definition of what is human? Is that not a moral definition?
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
"Yeah, well, you just live in a fantasy world."
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
No, the logic of pro-choice is either (or both) of two ideas: the first, that a fetus is not a human being, and so is not entitled to the same legal rights; the second, that a woman has a right to privacy.
Stop misrepresenting arguments.
chessmaster1989
Yes, the fetus isn't human at all. . . what's a human, you ask? Oh, nothing.
Putting words in my mouth which I neither said nor implied.
Actually, I'm expanding on what you said about the pro-choice position.
Women have a right to privacy, and as we all know, women can throw their children out on the street with absolutely no legal repercussions, because the woman has the right to privacy in her own home to do as she wants!
Nice straw man. A woman does have a right to privacy here, but must go about it in different ways (i.e. by giving the child up for adoption). In the case of a few-month-old fetus, it is removed from the body, and is not viable for survival anyway. There is a huge difference.
There is no difference. A child cannot survive on its own without the mother for, oh, about 15 years after it's born. If a woman has the right to kill a fetus due to "privacy," then the woman has the right to kill her children for the same reason. If not, then the position is logically inconsistent and worthless.
There is no logically consistent pro-choice argument that does not inevitably either dehumanise most living people or start defining animals and computers as human or eventually supports a type of eugenics. None whatsoever. This is when they try to be consistent. Hence, it is illogical.
Wrong. As shown by your above post, you are merely misrepresenting the logic of pro-choice arguments.
Not really.
"It's not human!" What's a human?
In my opinion, a fetus becomes human when it is viable for survival outside of the womb.
"Opinions" are worthless. There needs to be an objective standard of human or there is nothing special or unique about humanity and thus no reason for rights--leading to no particular reason why abortion should even be allowed, let alone all the other rights we have.
If a person is human when they can survive outside of the womb, then a fetus is human. If you take the fetus out of the womb then it will survive for a few minutes before it dies. Same for everyone else, really, except some of them might survive for a few days or weeks.
"It's the mother's right to privacy!" The mother can't privately kill her kids; why is the fetus different?
You're using two very different words, there.
Different words with the same meaning.
"Because the fetus isn't human!" What's human?
Lol, I love how you decided to repeat that argument. Refer to above post.
I repeated it to show the circular reasoning.
"Humans are special and deserve their rights!" What makes a human special?
Why do you argue that they do, then? It works both ways.
I have a consistent standard of what makes a human special.
Anyway, I can answer this question regardless. Human beings have rights because these rights are necessary to a functioning society; for example, could you imagine a society functioning viably if stealing were allowed? Further rights are necessary to prevent abuse of power by authority. I could probably think of more, but you get the idea.
And can you imagine a society that functions by allowing people to kill their children? If the authority in question isw what grants these rights in the first place, then how does the existence of the rights prevent abuse by that same authority?
"It's not alive!" It meets every biological definition of "alive" (and, for that matter, "human").
Thanks for the evidence. oh wait... This is the problem of most pro-lifers-they make claims like these without any actual evidence.
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.
http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm
There is no fetus that does not meet this definition.
I like how pro-choicers demand evidence for every syllable uttered from a pro-lifer yet base their entire position on opinions. "Well, in my opinion. . . ":lol:
"You can't force your morals on people!" So why should I abide by your definition of what is human? Is that not a moral definition?
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
I never said you did. ;)
"Yeah, well, you just live in a fantasy world."
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
I never said you did.;)
Well yeah in a magical fantasy world everyone would not make mistakes. But in the real world people make mistakes. Everything in this life is not sugar plums and lollipops. That's no personal attack, it is the truth. Sure it would be nice if nobody had sex until they were married and ready to provide for a child but the world does not work like that.[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Really? You said I live in a fantasy world when I--in my wholly mocking prose--said that, gasp, sex carries the risk of children. :|
Who started the attacks?
Theokhoth
Thats when you threw in the irresponsible nitwits line.
The world doesn't work like "we can kill people to correct mistakes," either.
The irresponsible nitwits line came after your ad hominems.
Well "people" are not killed in a legal abortion for the millionth time. But you can call it what you want but that does not make you right. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong.
Thats why in the real world abortions are legal. :| But yeah try and make it look like your attacks have accomplished anything. Besides when the debate gets drug down to the childish attacks level it's hard to not fall to that level. You and Mcjugga started the attacks first. Why try to be rational and logical with pretentious people attacking your viewpoint. Al my other rational and logical posts were ignored, it seems fly by attacks are how soem people like to operate why not stoop to their level in an effort to communicate with them.warbmxjohn
Please, show me where I attacked anyone.
Obama himself has made it pretty clear that he wishes to lower the number of abortions. -Sun_Tzu-
Yes, and he does this wonderfully by supporting legislation that allows minors to cross state lines to get abortions (so their family doesn't have to give permission), that sends taxpayer money overseas to perform abortions, that makes local abortions free and paid by taxpayers (regardless of whether or not they may be against it) and also opposes anything that remotely smells of a limit on abortions even after the child in question has been born.
That'll lower the number of abortions!
Well "people" are not killed in a legal abortion for the millionth time. But you can call it what you want but that does not make you right. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong. warbmxjohn
What separates a person behind a wall of tissue and you? Why are you human and "it" is not?
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Well yeah in a magical fantasy world everyone would not make mistakes. But in the real world people make mistakes. Everything in this life is not sugar plums and lollipops. That's no personal attack, it is the truth. Sure it would be nice if nobody had sex until they were married and ready to provide for a child but the world does not work like that.
Thats when you threw in the irresponsible nitwits line.
warbmxjohn
The world doesn't work like "we can kill people to correct mistakes," either.
The irresponsible nitwits line came after your ad hominems.
Well "people" are not killed in a legal abortion for the millionth time. But you can call it what you want but that does not make you right. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong.Oh, please; define what a person is before saying people aren't persons. We kinda already did that back during slavery days.
[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]
Well "people" are not killed in a legal abortion for the millionth time. But you can call it what you want but that does not make you right. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong. McJugga
What separates a person behind a wall of tissue and you? Why are you human and "it" is not?
I can live out side the wall of tissue. The fetus (first trimester) cannot. Thats one hell of a difference.[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]
Well "people" are not killed in a legal abortion for the millionth time. But you can call it what you want but that does not make you right. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong. warbmxjohn
What separates a person behind a wall of tissue and you? Why are you human and "it" is not?
I can live out side the wall of tissue. The fetus (first trimester) cannot. Thats one hell of a difference.The fetus can for a few minutes. You can for a few years. So the difference is in how long you can survive? :lol:
Well "people" are not killed in a legal abortion for the millionth time. But you can call it what you want but that does not make you right. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong.[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
The world doesn't work like "we can kill people to correct mistakes," either.
The irresponsible nitwits line came after your ad hominems.
Theokhoth
Oh, please; define what a person is before saying people aren't persons. We kinda already did that back during slavery days.
A first trimester fetus is not capable of life outside the womb therefore it is not a definitively a human YET.[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]
Well "people" are not killed in a legal abortion for the millionth time. But you can call it what you want but that does not make you right. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong. warbmxjohn
What separates a person behind a wall of tissue and you? Why are you human and "it" is not?
I can live out side the wall of tissue. The fetus (first trimester) cannot. Thats one hell of a difference.Helpless = not human?
Are disabled people not humans? Are born babies not human?
I can live out side the wall of tissue. The fetus (first trimester) cannot. Thats one hell of a difference.[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="McJugga"]
What separates a person behind a wall of tissue and you? Why are you human and "it" is not?
Theokhoth
The fetus can for a few minutes. You can for a few years. So the difference is in how long you can survive? :lol:
Thats a pretty big difference. But yeah laugh it up.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Well "people" are not killed in a legal abortion for the millionth time. But you can call it what you want but that does not make you right. You are entitled to your opinion right or wrong. warbmxjohn
Oh, please; define what a person is before saying people aren't persons. We kinda already did that back during slavery days.
A first trimester fetus is not capable of life outside the womb therefore it is not a definitively a human YET.A first-year child is not capable of life outside the mother's house therefore is not a human YET.
A fetus can survive outside the womb for a few minutes. Why does that not make it human?
I can live out side the wall of tissue. The fetus (first trimester) cannot. Thats one hell of a difference.[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="McJugga"]
What separates a person behind a wall of tissue and you? Why are you human and "it" is not?
McJugga
Helpless = not human?
Are disabled people not humans? Are born babies not human?
Disabled people can live, a born baby can live. A firt trimester fetus cannot live outside the womb.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]I can live out side the wall of tissue. The fetus (first trimester) cannot. Thats one hell of a difference.warbmxjohn
The fetus can for a few minutes. You can for a few years. So the difference is in how long you can survive? :lol:
Thats a pretty big difference. But yeah laugh it up.There is no difference. By your logic anyone who dies younger than you is not human. :lol:
Making abortions illegal does nothing to stop distraught women from getting an abortion. All that changes is the setting in which it takes place, from a clean, sterile clinic to some back alley butcher with a coat hanger. Unenforceable laws are worthless, this is a privacy issue and unless you are the person actually carrying the fetus inside your own body your opinion is moot. YES, I don't give a damn what a male thinks of the issue, being a male myself, we will NEVER know what it feels like to carry a baby to term, so we should just butt out. All the strawmen about woman being able to kill their young children since they can abort a fetus in the first trimester are tiresome.
[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]I can live out side the wall of tissue. The fetus (first trimester) cannot. Thats one hell of a difference.warbmxjohn
Helpless = not human?
Are disabled people not humans? Are born babies not human?
Disabled people can live, a born baby can live. A firt trimester fetus cannot live outside the womb.For how long? How long does something have to be able to live outside of the womb in order to be human?
[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]I can live out side the wall of tissue. The fetus (first trimester) cannot. Thats one hell of a difference.warbmxjohn
Helpless = not human?
Are disabled people not humans? Are born babies not human?
Disabled people can live, a born baby can live. A firt trimester fetus cannot live outside the womb. You have a very sick idea of what constitutes life.Making abortions illegal does nothing to stop distraught women from getting an abortion. All that changes is the setting in which it takes place, from a clean, sterile clinic to some back alley butcher with a coat hanger. Unenforceable laws are worthless...
ScorpionBeeBee
People break every single law there is. Does that mean they should not be there?
Nobody is foolish enough to think that there will never be another abortion once the laws are changed, but they will obviously be significantly reduced.
[QUOTE="ScorpionBeeBee"]
Making abortions illegal does nothing to stop distraught women from getting an abortion.
Theokhoth
My, the same appears to go for murder, rape, theft, manslaughter, intent to harm, assisted suicide, and pretty much every other crime in existence.
Ugh why are you equating all those different, illegal crimes with a first trimester abortion?? Do you know what it is like to be impregnated with a child you are not financially or emotionally able to raise? No? I didn't think so, and to equate a woman's right to choose what happens in her womb with willful and illegal crimes is intellectually bankrupt. There are clear legal lines drawn in the sand here, take your strawmen to the field where they can be useful and keep the crows away.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="ScorpionBeeBee"]
Making abortions illegal does nothing to stop distraught women from getting an abortion.
ScorpionBeeBee
My, the same appears to go for murder, rape, theft, manslaughter, intent to harm, assisted suicide, and pretty much every other crime in existence.
Ugh why are you equating all those different, illegal crimes with a first trimester abortion??Because your logic is as consistent as mud. Saying it'll be done anyway is no reason to make it legal unless you want to make everything else that is illegal legal on the same grounds.
OT: The only site other than the site that must not be named where threads get off the intended topic frequently.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="ScorpionBeeBee"]
Making abortions illegal does nothing to stop distraught women from getting an abortion.
ScorpionBeeBee
My, the same appears to go for murder, rape, theft, manslaughter, intent to harm, assisted suicide, and pretty much every other crime in existence.
Ugh why are you equating all those different, illegal crimes with a first trimester abortion?? Do you know what it is like to be impregnated with a child you are not financially or emotionally able to raise? No? I didn't think so, and to equate a woman's right to choose what happens in her womb with willful and illegal crimes is intellectually bankrupt. There are clear legal lines drawn in the sand here, take your strawmen to the field where they can be useful and keep the crows away.You have to admit that Obama opposing the band on partial-birth abortion is a bit past extreme. I mean, you wouldnt kill your own child as its coming out the birth canal would ya?
Also:
If you dont believe me.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Yes, the fetus isn't human at all. . . what's a human, you ask? Oh, nothing.
Putting words in my mouth which I neither said nor implied.
Actually, I'm expanding on what you said about the pro-choice position.
Umm... how so? I never said that nothing is a human being, nor did I ever ask the question of what a human being is. End of story.
Women have a right to privacy, and as we all know, women can throw their children out on the street with absolutely no legal repercussions, because the woman has the right to privacy in her own home to do as she wants!
Nice straw man. A woman does have a right to privacy here, but must go about it in different ways (i.e. by giving the child up for adoption). In the case of a few-month-old fetus, it is removed from the body, and is not viable for survival anyway. There is a huge difference.
There is no difference. A child cannot survive on its own without the mother for, oh, about 15 years after it's born. If a woman has the right to kill a fetus due to "privacy," then the woman has the right to kill her children for the same reason. If not, then the position is logically inconsistent and worthless.
Yes, but that child can survive if given to a new caretaker. The same cannot be said of a fetus. They are very different cases.
There is no logically consistent pro-choice argument that does not inevitably either dehumanise most living people or start defining animals and computers as human or eventually supports a type of eugenics. None whatsoever. This is when they try to be consistent. Hence, it is illogical.
Wrong. As shown by your above post, you are merely misrepresenting the logic of pro-choice arguments.
Not really.
Merely contradicting what I said is not a valid argument, unless you live in a Monty Python-type universe. For the record, Monty Python's Flying Circus is the best TV show ever made.
"It's not human!" What's a human?
In my opinion, a fetus becomes human when it is viable for survival outside of the womb.
"Opinions" are worthless. There needs to be an objective standard of human or there is nothing special or unique about humanity and thus no reason for rights--leading to no particular reason why abortion should even be allowed, let alone all the other rights we have.
What I'm saying is that this definition of when a fetus becomes human should be that objective standard.
If a person is human when they can survive outside of the womb, then a fetus is human. If you take the fetus out of the womb then it will survive for a few minutes before it dies. Same for everyone else, really, except some of them might survive for a few days or weeks.
Well done, you just managed to take my words literally instead of actually looking at their meaning. Kind of like Biblical literalism, but that's a different story.
"It's the mother's right to privacy!" The mother can't privately kill her kids; why is the fetus different?
You're using two very different words, there.
Different words with the same meaning.
Not at all. The first case describes a property pertaining to a mother's right to an abortion. The second case describes a circumstance under which an event would occur.
"Because the fetus isn't human!" What's human?
Lol, I love how you decided to repeat that argument. Refer to above post.
I repeated it to show the circular reasoning.
...lolwut? Thanks mate, now explain yourself.
"Humans are special and deserve their rights!" What makes a human special?
Why do you argue that they do, then? It works both ways.
I have a consistent standard of what makes a human special.
So do I.
Anyway, I can answer this question regardless. Human beings have rights because these rights are necessary to a functioning society; for example, could you imagine a society functioning viably if stealing were allowed? Further rights are necessary to prevent abuse of power by authority. I could probably think of more, but you get the idea.
And can you imagine a society that functions by allowing people to kill their children? If the authority in question isw what grants these rights in the first place, then how does the existence of the rights prevent abuse by that same authority?
Fetuses aren't children.
"It's not alive!" It meets every biological definition of "alive" (and, for that matter, "human").
Thanks for the evidence. oh wait... This is the problem of most pro-lifers-they make claims like these without any actual evidence.
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm
There is no fetus that does not meet this definition.
I like how pro-choicers demand evidence for every syllable uttered from a pro-lifer yet base their entire position on opinions. "Well, in my opinion. . . ":lol:
Ohai, I forgot, all of those traits are unique to humans. :roll:
"You can't force your morals on people!" So why should I abide by your definition of what is human? Is that not a moral definition?
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
I never said you did. ;)
So, why post it?
"Yeah, well, you just live in a fantasy world."
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
I never said you did.;)
So, why post it?
Theokhoth
Thats a pretty big difference. But yeah laugh it up.[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
The fetus can for a few minutes. You can for a few years. So the difference is in how long you can survive? :lol:
Theokhoth
There is no difference. By your logic anyone who dies younger than you is not human. :lol:
I think you pretty much entirely failed, or intentionally misinterpreted that statement. A first trimester fetus is incapable of survival out side the womb, a human is capable of survival outside the womb. That is the difference that clarifies the two separate stages of development. Hopefully that is clear enough for you. Let me say I do not want the abortions to be casual birth control, that are not a big deal. I want people that get abortions to get counseling and make sure they know what other options they have and assist they can get to keep the child if they make choose so.[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="McJugga"]Disabled people can live, a born baby can live. A firt trimester fetus cannot live outside the womb. You have a very sick idea of what constitutes life.Helpless = not human?
Are disabled people not humans? Are born babies not human?
cametall
Cool story bro.
Come back when you want to present an argument instead of insulting others.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Obama himself has made it pretty clear that he wishes to lower the number of abortions. Theokhoth
Yes, and he does this wonderfully by supporting legislation that allows minors to cross state lines to get abortions (so their family doesn't have to give permission), that sends taxpayer money overseas to perform abortions, that makes local abortions free and paid by taxpayers (regardless of whether or not they may be against it) and also opposes anything that remotely smells of a limit on abortions even after the child in question has been born.
That'll lower the number of abortions!
Being for the right to get an abortion does not equate being for the procedure itself. Most, if not all reasonable people who are pro-choice are not for abortion, but the reason why they are pro-choice is that they feel as if an outright ban on abortion would do more harm than good, because they feel as if it doesn't really solve the problem and only encourages irresonsible behavior. The pro-choice movement would rather focus exclusively on preventing scenarios where abortions can even be considered, rather than outright ban it.A first trimester fetus is not capable of life outside the womb therefore it is not a definitively a human YET.[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Oh, please; define what a person is before saying people aren't persons. We kinda already did that back during slavery days.
Theokhoth
A first-year child is not capable of life outside the mother's house therefore is not a human YET.
A fetus can survive outside the womb for a few minutes. Why does that not make it human?
House =/= Womb (I would expect you try and spin it like that) Living outside the womb, is not conscious life, there is a difference. A fish can live outside water for a few minutes too, but that time is death inevitably coming.[QUOTE="ScorpionBeeBee"]
Making abortions illegal does nothing to stop distraught women from getting an abortion. All that changes is the setting in which it takes place, from a clean, sterile clinic to some back alley butcher with a coat hanger. Unenforceable laws are worthless...
McJugga
People break every single law there is. Does that mean they should not be there?
Nobody is foolish enough to think that there will never be another abortion once the laws are changed, but they will obviously be significantly reduced.
And the number of women (mostly frightened teenage girls doing it in secret) dying from these procedures will rise...
Ultimately abortion IS necessary, mistakes happen, teenagers are stupid and WILL have sex, however education on effective and responsible use of contraception's (not this abstinence bs), and the public perception of sex in general needs to change, ultimately this whole "secrecy" and "sordidness" view on sex because of incompetent and uncomfortable parents relying on the government to do everything for them just encourage teens to do it more and earlier without sufficient knowledge and education of the risks. Fighting the legality of abortion is not an effective way to stop it from happening, it is really that simple, abortions are going to happen anyway.
House =/= Womb (I would expect you try and spin it like that) Living outside the womb, is not conscious life, there is a difference. A fish can live outside water for a few minutes too, but that time is death inevitably coming.warbmxjohn
Therefore, it is not a fish.
[QUOTE="McJugga"]
[QUOTE="ScorpionBeeBee"]
Making abortions illegal does nothing to stop distraught women from getting an abortion. All that changes is the setting in which it takes place, from a clean, sterile clinic to some back alley butcher with a coat hanger. Unenforceable laws are worthless...
bean-with-bacon
People break every single law there is. Does that mean they should not be there?
Nobody is foolish enough to think that there will never be another abortion once the laws are changed, but they will obviously be significantly reduced.
And the number of women (mostly frightened teenage girls doing it in secret) dying from these procedures will rise...
Nobody is forcing them to get an illegal abortion, they could always... You know... Give birth.
[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Thats why in the real world abortions are legal. :| But yeah try and make it look like your attacks have accomplished anything. Besides when the debate gets drug down to the childish attacks level it's hard to not fall to that level. You and Mcjugga started the attacks first. Why try to be rational and logical with pretentious people attacking your viewpoint. Al my other rational and logical posts were ignored, it seems fly by attacks are how soem people like to operate why not stoop to their level in an effort to communicate with them.McJugga
Please, show me where I attacked anyone.
]Yes, mistakes happen. Killing someone to "fix" a problem should never even be an option.
McJugga
Not necessarily a direct attack, but a snide manner of referencing abortions. One that brings the debate closer to a flame war than a respectable debate.
[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]House =/= Womb (I would expect you try and spin it like that) Living outside the womb, is not conscious life, there is a difference. A fish can live outside water for a few minutes too, but that time is death inevitably coming.McJugga
Therefore, it is not a fish.
What? can't you follow the comparison. It was about life not species. A fish out of water isn't alive really.Yes, the fetus isn't human at all. . . what's a human, you ask? Oh, nothing.
Putting words in my mouth which I neither said nor implied.
Actually, I'm expanding on what you said about the pro-choice position.
Umm... how so? I never said that nothing is a human being, nor did I ever ask the question of what a human being is. End of story.
No, you simply said "Fetuses aren't human."
Women have a right to privacy, and as we all know, women can throw their children out on the street with absolutely no legal repercussions, because the woman has the right to privacy in her own home to do as she wants!
Nice straw man. A woman does have a right to privacy here, but must go about it in different ways (i.e. by giving the child up for adoption). In the case of a few-month-old fetus, it is removed from the body, and is not viable for survival anyway. There is a huge difference.
There is no difference. A child cannot survive on its own without the mother for, oh, about 15 years after it's born. If a woman has the right to kill a fetus due to "privacy," then the woman has the right to kill her children for the same reason. If not, then the position is logically inconsistent and worthless.
Yes, but that child can survive if given to a new caretaker. The same cannot be said of a fetus. They are very different cases.
Can't it be said? We have such advanced medical technology these days; has anybody tried to take the fetus from one body and put it in another? We can (and do) do this with eggs and even new embryos, so why not fetuses?
Anyway, no, it is not different; the fetus can survive for a few minutes; the other guy can survive for a few years. The only difference is in time, which is relative anyway.
There is no logically consistent pro-choice argument that does not inevitably either dehumanise most living people or start defining animals and computers as human or eventually supports a type of eugenics. None whatsoever. This is when they try to be consistent. Hence, it is illogical.
Wrong. As shown by your above post, you are merely misrepresenting the logic of pro-choice arguments.
Not really.
Merely contradicting what I said is not a valid argument, unless you live in a Monty Python-type universe. For the record, Monty Python's Flying Circus is the best TV show ever made.
Haven't you been contradicting what I've said?
"It's not human!" What's a human?
In my opinion, a fetus becomes human when it is viable for survival outside of the womb.
"Opinions" are worthless. There needs to be an objective standard of human or there is nothing special or unique about humanity and thus no reason for rights--leading to no particular reason why abortion should even be allowed, let alone all the other rights we have.
What I'm saying is that this definition of when a fetus becomes human should be that objective standard.
And what I'm saying is that it is logically inconsistent--and thus cannot possibly be viable for objectivity.
If a person is human when they can survive outside of the womb, then a fetus is human. If you take the fetus out of the womb then it will survive for a few minutes before it dies. Same for everyone else, really, except some of them might survive for a few days or weeks.
Well done, you just managed to take my words literally instead of actually looking at their meaning. Kind of like Biblical literalism, but that's a different story.
Your meaning is different? Then say what you mean and quit dancing with words. What you said: A fetus can't survive outside of the womb, therefore, it is not human. What I said: Yes it can survive outside of the womb, just like you and me; the ONLY difference is in HOW LONG.
"It's the mother's right to privacy!" The mother can't privately kill her kids; why is the fetus different?
You're using two very different words, there.
Different words with the same meaning.
Not at all. The first case describes a property pertaining to a mother's right to an abortion. The second case describes a circumstance under which an event would occur.
They both fall under the mother's right to privacy. Of course they're different in that one is allowed and one is not, but there's no consistent reason as to why this is.
"Because the fetus isn't human!" What's human?
Lol, I love how you decided to repeat that argument. Refer to above post.
I repeated it to show the circular reasoning.
...lolwut? Thanks mate, now explain yourself.
I explained myself in my first post. The whole pro-choice position revolves around subjectively defining "human" so that the fetus does not meet that definition; ask what is a human and you get the runaround and eventually end up back at "it's not human!" Ergo, circular reasoning.
"Humans are special and deserve their rights!" What makes a human special?
Why do you argue that they do, then? It works both ways.
I have a consistent standard of what makes a human special.
So do I.
You haven't exactly given it.
Anyway, I can answer this question regardless. Human beings have rights because these rights are necessary to a functioning society; for example, could you imagine a society functioning viably if stealing were allowed? Further rights are necessary to prevent abuse of power by authority. I could probably think of more, but you get the idea.
And can you imagine a society that functions by allowing people to kill their children? If the authority in question isw what grants these rights in the first place, then how does the existence of the rights prevent abuse by that same authority?
Fetuses aren't children.
There's no difference between a fetus five minutes from birth and a child five minutes after birth, now is there? Plus, you avoided my point.
"It's not alive!" It meets every biological definition of "alive" (and, for that matter, "human").
Thanks for the evidence. oh wait... This is the problem of most pro-lifers-they make claims like these without any actual evidence.
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3. Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.
5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm
There is no fetus that does not meet this definition.
I like how pro-choicers demand evidence for every syllable uttered from a pro-lifer yet base their entire position on opinions. "Well, in my opinion. . . ":lol:
Ohai, I forgot, all of those traits are unique to humans. :roll:
We aren't talking about humans. :lol: We're talking about "alive," remember?;)
"You can't force your morals on people!" So why should I abide by your definition of what is human? Is that not a moral definition?
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
I never said you did. ;)
So, why post it?
Because I'm not talking to or about you specifically.
"Yeah, well, you just live in a fantasy world."
I never said nor argued that within the context of abortion on this thread. Thanks ;).
I never said you did.;)
So, why post it?
Theokhoth
[QUOTE="McJugga"]
Please, show me where I attacked anyone.
warbmxjohn
]Yes, mistakes happen. Killing someone to "fix" a problem should never even be an option.
McJugga
Not necessarily a direct attack, but a snide manner of referencing abortions. One that brings the debate closer to a flame war than a respectable debate.
What...? :|
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]A first trimester fetus is not capable of life outside the womb therefore it is not a definitively a human YET.warbmxjohn
A first-year child is not capable of life outside the mother's house therefore is not a human YET.
A fetus can survive outside the womb for a few minutes. Why does that not make it human?
House =/= Womb (I would expect you try and spin it like that) Living outside the womb, is not conscious life, there is a difference. A fish can live outside water for a few minutes too, but that time is death inevitably coming.Therefore, it isn't a fish?:lol:
Or if you mean alive, then yes it is alive until it dies; it doesn't die every time it leaves the water to catch a bug.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment