Look, I know it's been overdone - but abortion - yay or nay?
POSTED BY: FLF
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 13:13
VIEWED: 24147
PAGE 16 of 26
Quote:You can say it, and should.
Originally posted by citizen:
Lets also assume that we know, for certain that during sex these Sperm will Fertilise that egg and will produce an embryo that will produce a child. Why can't I say that preventing fertilisation is also murder based on the same reasoning?
I call for life in prison for all those evil maturbaters that spill their seed wastefully upon the Earth!
Murders!
Biped scum!!!
Think of the billions lost to us Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
As Rue has already shown even after fertilisation and barring any other intervention the fertilised egg may not produce a viable pregnancy. And as I've already said Human pregnancy is actually the most dangerous of the entire animal kingdom, and less likely to produce a living offspring, what I mean is that an egg is only a potential human, but so is an Embryo.
An egg is not a potential human anymore than a bug is potential chicken food. Only if very certain factors are met, are actively brought together, chance willing, do one egg and one of MANY sperm cells combine and do the whole fertilization thing.
Egg and sperm by themselves mean nothing. Their job is to provide the option. Fertilization is that option realized because it puts the combination of egg and sperm on a vastly different path than the majority of all eggs and sperm cells, who do nothing but die.
The fact that an enbryo is capable of being rejected by the woman's body and dying at a very early stage in human life doesn't put it in the same category as egg and sperm.
Quote:
The biggest linchpin in the Argument so far has been "it could be Human therefore it is Human",
I disagree. The argument is "It is human, therefor it is human". One stage in human life. After two sparate parts of two separate people have combined into one unified, growing mass of cells with a separate genetic identity, that grows and develops until it dies, at whichever stage that occurs.
Quote:
how is saying "an egg could be Human therefore it is Human" any different?
Because the egg is just a PART of a human being, without a separate genetic identity, which - without interference - does nothing but die?
Quote:
If Finn can insinuate that someone is a baby killer because they abort some cells that may be a Human (which apparently means they are a Human) how is saying prevention of fertilisation is murder any different?
Oh, come ON. In the same way that not building a house isn't the same as burning down a house? The difference between abstract and concrete, hypopthetical and factual, possible and actual?
You're smarter than this.
Quote:
Lets assume that we know 100% that the Embryo will develop into a child, so we say aborting it is murder.
Why would we? I don't consider it murder anymore than I consider it murder not to donate a kidney to a person who needs a transplant. It's a choice the mother is entitled to make, because the embryo/fetus makes demands on her physical body.
Quote:
Lets also assume that we know, for certain that during sex these Sperm will Fertilise that egg and will produce an embryo that will produce a child. Why can't I say that preventing fertilisation is also murder based on the same reasoning?
a) It's not murder.
b) You say that the fertilized egg is a "may be", I say it's an "is". But without fertilization it "is not", so... really, to me there is a marked difference between "is" and "is not" and for you it's two "maybes", which is really the actual disagreement between us.
Quote:
How is a Condom natural? How?
It's not natural..? It's an artificial barrier to decrease the likelihood of egg and sperm meeting during intercourse. To make it so that it's as if the man orgasms outside the vagina, as if they're not having sexual intercourse at all. As if they're masturbating, if you will, judging by where the sperms ends up. Who procaimed that it's "natural"? It's a convenient invention to prevent fertilization.
Quote:
What about the morning after pill? That is to all intents and purposes an abortion that can be used within three days. How's that not murder if abortion is?
Many anti-abortion people are actually calling it murder, but I fail to see why you are asking ME that, who I don't consider abortion wrong.
Quote:
But on to the last part, no one has demonstrated that an Embryo IS Human, they've shown that it may potentially pos
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I’ve been in Washington lately, but here is my collection of responses:
Quote:It’s good to find your niche.
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Finn,
Well, I'm a lot happier as a liberal than I was as a Limbaugh-listening ultra-conservative. So there's that.
Yeah, I think the abstinence-plus thing sounds good. I’m not completely up to speed on it, but it sounds like exactly something that I suggested once or something similar to it.
However I’m not really as adamantly opposed to the abstinence-only programs as you are. I’m skeptical about them, because I think they are too optimistic, but I don’t think there is anything wrong-headed about them, in fact ideally, I think it is the preference; I just don’t know for sure that they will work.
Quote:I don’t see any reason to trade a mother’s life for her fetus, unless that is her will, but any percentage of the chance of the mother’s death would be meaningless. No one can make that kind of determination. It would come down to the medical opinion of the doctor, like any other medical issue.
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
But, if in your mind, a fetus is a human life and has a right to live, how does a (potential) mother's health concerns change this? Does any health concern trump the right to life? Must the mother's life be in grave danger or would the most pedestrian of concerns be sufficient? If your answer is grave danger, how grave? Is a 5% chance of certain death enough? How about 51%? Must it be above 90%? Finally, do you think there is a reasonable chance of reaching a consensus on this, even within the pro-life community?
Quote:Since I don’t have an absolute answer to give you, wouldn’t that make me pro-Choice in your set of definitions?
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
My point is that there is really only two positions on this issue. The "right to life" is either relative or it is absolute. You have an exception. It may be different than those of the explicitly pro-choice people, but it's still an exception. And just as the pro-choicer's exceptions are inadequate to you, your exception is inadequate to the people on your right.
Quote:This is a discussion about abortion and related topics, not Finn’s compassion for human life, which is not in question, as far as I’m concerned.
Originally posted by SignyM:
ummm... Because you seem to have an opnion about it and you put it out to a discussion board?
Quote:You’re points are good ones, and they define the rift between what I consider a pro-choice argument and pro-abortion argument. It’s somewhat meaningless to claim that there is a “choice” to be made between saving or killing a “blob of cells.” And to believe that that is all that is at stake is either an attempt to objectify the fetus to make it easier to kill or it’s a fundamental misunderstanding. If it were true, there would be no dispute. No one gets up in arms over an appendectomy. If a fetus were no different then no one would be any more concerned, but an embryo or fetus are the first stages in human life, and that is where the choice lies, as you’ve pointed out. Some would argue that there is no choice to be had because the fetus has a right to run its natural course, but an argument that paints the fetus as unimportant is also fundamentally different from anything that could be called “pro-choice,” it is effectively a “pro-abortion” argument.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Be it just a blob of cells - which would be great, in terms of dealing with that act - but it's a blob of cells that by high probability is just one stage in a direct line from zero to person.
Unlike a scrape of epidermis or a bunch of sperm or eggs.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,
Sorry about the earlier troll post. Fight the good fight. Logic dictates a solution here, but the left arguments don't hold up. I sometimes wonder if there's not a more insidious goal in the allowing fo blanket abortions, whetherNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to give my two cents worth,
I have no problem with Abortion as I do not see that an embryo is fully self aware, it is that self awareness that leads to life. For me Decartes almost had it (I think therefore I am) but I would say "I understand therefore I am" Without the ability articulate abstract thought you are not an advanced concious being. A two year old child has more in common with an Ape than a fully grown human, it is the potential to become human that sets them apart not their ability themselves.
As stated earlier I have no problem with Abortion but this may be due to my lack of faith in churchs. (Note that's church not god) my personal belief is that it should be the choice of the Woman and Man involved and each should have a say (obviously this is not practical as the Man can not carry the baby) but a shared responsibility would always be the preference.
my final thought on the subject is that due to the overcrowding of our world and the spheres of society who have the greatest number of unwanted/teenage pregnancies, do we really want to discourage abortion? with my evil head on I would go as far as too say maybe we sgould encourage more 
although I do not belive this as such, it is worth considering (assuming it is not considered by anyone who actually has power)
===============================================
Vote Day 1st December 2006 http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Together we will triumph.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, if the compassion, ethics, and consistency of a pro-choice/ anti-capital punishment position can be questioned, then the compassion, ethics, and consistency of anti-abortion/ pro-war/ pro-capital punishment opinion also comes into question.
ummm... Because you seem to have an opnion about it and you put it out to a discussion board?- Signy
This is a discussion about abortion and related topics, not Finn’s compassion for human life, which is not in question, as far as I’m concerned.- Finn
Of course, yours could just be the dodge of a person who is unwilling to question their own passionately held beliefs for fear that they might learn something.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It seems the pro-lifers are pretty desperate to throw out accusations that the pro-choice side has some shadowy nefarious scheme up their sleeves based around 'murdering babies' for profit and depopulation of the Human race, I suppose to allow the Commie-Nazi-Socialists to take over the world more easilly. Perhaps it would be fair to make similar accusations?
Like suggesting that the pro-life movement is merely the tool of a mass paedophile network, one that want's abortions banned. After all an aborted fetus can't be pumped into a global sex slave network.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
the quotable citizen
Quote:
the pro-choice side has some shadowy nefarious scheme up their sleeves
well said
Quote:
the pro-life movement is merely the tool of a mass paedophile network, one that want's abortions banned.
sure, it's possible, but there is no real logic backing this idea up. we could just be anti-death. I know it's a strange position. we're irrational that way. btw "wants" has no apostrophe (')
Quote:
EvilBungle
I have no problem with Abortion ... I would go as far as too say maybe we sgould encourage more
It's nice to know where evil stands on this issue.
btw "Should" has no 'g' in it.
:)
also, evil. I take the reverse position, I have some serious problems with God, as in Yhwh, but I have no problem with the church.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT
"Killing, ending a life, by your own choice, of someone else, is wrong. It's wrong if you take a bag of kittens and hang it in a tree and shoot it full of holes ..."
Are you vegetarian? I'm just wondering how pro-life you are. (And if you are vegetarian and don't eat eggs - congrats! for walking the talk.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's the same level of logic behind the pro-life side being a paedophile ring as there is behind the pro-choice side being a bunch of baby murdering Commie-Nazi-Alien-Socialist-Jews (come on, a conspiracy theory just ain't complete with out the international Jew).
It's strange for a side that's supposed to be anti-death the 'pro-life' supporters are so consistently pro-death, as long as the cannon fodder, sorry children, have already been born.
I guess they like the idea of Human life better than the life itself.
Good too see you're debate tactics have improved, purposefully taking a quote out of context and petty spelling correction, bravo. I'll be sure to use these against you in the future.
Anyway, what about that paedophilia thing within the Roman Catholic Church? Some of the strongest supporters of 'pro-life' I might add, we know where Dreamtrove stands:
Quote:
I have no problem with the church.
BTW, 'defense' is spelt defence and fo has an 'r' at the end.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signy
Well, if the compassion, ethics, and consistency of a pro-choice/ anti-capital punishment position can be questioned, then the compassion, ethics, and consistency of anti-abortion/ pro-war/ pro-capital punishment opinion also comes into question.
I clipped the moral attack, as perhaps you should have :) actually, on this, first, I have to say, I don't get the pro-choice "moral" argument. The left here has an argument of convenience, not a true moral position.
But you do have a point. People should be morally consistant. I said I'm anti-death penalty. I'm generally anti-war, but war is trickier. Being a peacenik opposed to war against the nazis is not a truly pro-life position. If someone is slaughtering people in Rwanda by the millions, blocking action against that in not a pro-life position.
I said earlier, that I have a "least death" position on war. I don't believe that starting a conflict in Iraq *now* has proven to be a "least death" version.
Saddam's govt. is said to have caused 25,000 to 40,000 deaths annually, outside of war. If you add the wars, those numbers go way up.
The war with Iran was started by Saddam and carries out by him, and stopped when he gave up, so can easily be said to be "his fault" in the same way that the current iraq bungle is "bush's fault" regardless of what other forces are at work) total casualties are accepted to fall around 1 million.
The Clinton campaign against Saddam took on the order of a million lives, then there's the gulf war and this new war. Total we're talking big numbers.
Ballpark:
Iran/Iraq 1000K
Kurd war 300K
Bush Sr. 50K
Clinton 1000K
Bush Jr. 650K
is 3 million over and above the day to day running of a police state. Saddam may not be directly responsible for some deaths in conflict with the US, but he shares some blame, and is directly responsible for invading Iran and Kuwait, which were his decisions. If someone robs a liquor store and kills the clerk, then you don't blame his land lord for asking for the rent, which caused the killers need for cash.
If we say everything will balance out in the end, and we can blame Saddam for half of those deaths, and various outside forces, Bush, Clinton, etc., for the other half, then we get Saddam = 1.5M dead/25 years.
This means 60K dead/year.
Taking the Bush Jr. war, that's been 650K/3yr, so 210K/yr, so worse than saddam, so it fails the least death rule.
But it *could* have been least death, if it had been done well. We've overthrown other tin pots with a few hundred casualties in places like Panama, so it *was* possible to do it with <60K dead/year.
Still, I think that in any pre-emptive war, you should have to prove that your methods will be least death, based on the real evidence, not on some wmd specter. One of the things globalists do is they stoke up the consequences to some pie in the sky, and that justifies any and all action. That's just a recipe for disaster.
A subtle subdued version of Iraq could probably have succeeded. I'm not at all convinced that the "more boots" version would have been an improvement. the "steal" version might have worked, or the "slow and steady" plan, which was the administrations first plan, before they failed to get Turkey on their side, by not paying the $15M bribe the Turks asked for.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME