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 6 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
The majority of abortions are performed at a stage where viability outside the mother is utterly and totally out of the question, so I don't see this argument going far.
Not today. The science of Roe is from case studies from the '60s and '70s. Viability now is much different, certainly more then a week, and depending on the access to medical care, it could be more then a month. If viability is the standard the Court used to decide Roe, its a changing standard and also subjective since a wealthy person's fetus has a different viability then a poverty stricken one if for no other reason then access to proper medical care. Roe needs revision to reflect this reality or its meaningless.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You equated an embryo to being the same thing as a child, thus you equate 'aborting' a child to aborting a fetus. Not my imagination, maybe you should reconsider your wording to remove confusion or stand by your statements for what they are and stop lying, your choice.
That’s your imagination.
Quote:Soon as you prove that potential is the same as actual, and prove how aborting the potentiallity of birth is the same as aborting the potentiallity of a child growing into an adult.
So what? Show me a fully developed human fetus that is not a human, and I’ll reword my post. It is a fact that a human fetus develops into a human child, not a chicken or a cow.
Quote:That's your imagination.
Unless, like rue, you define people with physical abnormalities as not being human, but that is a compassionless opinion that I doubt many people will be willing to accept.
Nice spin though, people who disagree with finn are Nazis, nice one, well played.
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
Just re-posting here so Finn doesn't miss it:
Finn,
No I don't believe a simple deformity makes a fetus a non-person. But somewhere between a cleft palate and a mass of poorly differentiated tissues there is a dividing line between a child and a non-child.
I propose normal brain activity as the line.
The other problem I have with your posts is that they confuse potential with actuality:
"There is no more question about whether a human fetus will potentially develop into a human child ..."
AND set a far more demanding standard for 'human' than I do:
"Show me a fully developed human fetus that is not a human ..."
In fact, by your wording, you set a much more demanding standard than I do. You require them to be "fully developed". I only require brain activity.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My wording is fine. Yours, however, is questionable. Once again with the strawman arguments and accusation of “lying,” since you can’t really argue maturely. Nonetheless, you have no interest in anything I have to say, and I have no interest in listening to you spout off.
Originally posted by citizen:
You equated an embryo to being the same thing as a child, thus you equate 'aborting' a child to aborting a fetus. Not my imagination, maybe you should reconsider your wording to remove confusion or stand by your statements for what they are and stop lying, your choice. .
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I'll wait about 15 more minutes for an answer. I've got better things to do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because anything I said is as bad as acusing Rue of believing people with disabillities aren't human. I guess thats mature debate for the likes of you.
I never said you were lying, I said that obviously your wording was misleading, otherwise I wouldn't have been mislead by it. I said it would be lying to continue to say "it's not misleading", since it obviously is, even to the most slow witted.
You lost any credibillity when you accused people who disagree with you of being Nazis. You have no interest in debate mature or otherwise, and you are certainly incapable of it, and I have no interest in hearing your accusations of nazism.
I'd ask you if you still beat your wife, but I know your proud of it. (note: Finn could be proud of not beating his wife, but I decided to dabble in some of finn's wording, changes things doesn't it).
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:Maybe, but you’ve dropped the word “human.” So I don’t know that you are arguing the same thing anymore.
Originally posted by rue:
No I don't believe a simple deformity makes a fetus a non-person. But somewhere between a cleft palate and a mass of poorly differentiated tissues there is a dividing line between a child and a non-child.
Quote:I’m not confusing the two. I’m talking about potentiality.
Originally posted by rue:
The other problem I have with your posts is that they confuse potential with actuality:
"There is no more question about whether a human fetus will potentially develop into a human child ..."
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me reword it so you know I'm talking about the same thing. That way we can discuss issues rather than nitpick.
No I don't believe a simple deformity makes a fetus a non-HUMAN. But somewhere between a cleft palate and a mass of poorly differentiated tissues there is a dividing line between a child and a non-child.
"I’m not confusing the two. I’m talking about potentiality." And by your own construction you categorize a fetus as not a child YET. If it were a child already there would be no potential. It would be a fait accompli. Since it isn't a child yet, it is only a hypothetical - potential - child at present.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oddly, potential was the word I used.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HUH ???
I KNOW potential was the word you used.
And it indicated to me that in your view, a fetus is not a human YET. There is the 'possibility' it will get there, the 'potential', but not the actuality. You then argue that a fetus is a child. You can't have it both ways. Either it might potentially become one or it is one already.
Which is it?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME