Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Abortion

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:51:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have a question, but I don't know if it will apply to anyone here.

I have heard the argument in favor of abortion, that life sucks so much that it's kind of doing the fetus a favor, or it might be born into a family that doesn't love it, or go hungry, etc...

My question is, if you personally think life is so bad, why are you still alive?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:52:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:51:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I have a question, but I don't know if it will apply to anyone here.

I have heard the argument in favor of abortion, that life sucks so much that it's kind of doing the fetus a favor, or it might be born into a family that doesn't love it, or go hungry, etc...

My question is, if you personally think life is so bad, why are you still alive?

Maybe because the parents of the parents of the fetus thought that life was good?
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:57:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.

Saying that a fetus might go hungry is no different than saying you might go hungry.

If you are doing the fetus a favor, someone would be doing you a favor by saving you from any potential hardship in the future too.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 2:59:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:57:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.

Saying that a fetus might go hungry is no different than saying you might go hungry.

If you are doing the fetus a favor, someone would be doing you a favor by saving you from any potential hardship in the future too.

And then balance that out with the potential millionaire kind of success that the fetus might have.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 6:45:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Haha I've never heard that one before. That said, life does suck.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 8:26:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The point is that I choose to be alive. The fetus can't choose.
That being said, the parents chose to become prego in the first place (most of the time at least).
I don't really think that argument is particularly good.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 9:24:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 8:26:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
The point is that I choose to be alive. The fetus can't choose.
That being said, the parents chose to become prego in the first place (most of the time at least).
I don't really think that argument is particularly good.

It's a horrible argument.

Next time you're asleep, someone could choose to kill you, because you're not conscious, so you can't choose to live... right?

It's horrible to me that we take such a stance on innocent life... I literally cannot comprehend how someone could contemplate killing a fetus at any stage, without a severe reason to do so. I'm simply appalled by people who think it is ok to kill a 40 week-old baby, just because it hasn't been birthed yet.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 12:51:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
person |ˈpərsən|
noun ( pl. people |ˈpēpəl| or persons )
1 a human being regarded as an individual : the porter was the last person to see her | she is a person of astonishing energy.
" used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual : the entrance fee is $10.00 per person.

human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Now tell me, what is it about a fetus that either suggests that it is a person, or even a human being by definition? As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is not a person until the cord has been cut, and by definition the fetus is a part of the mother until that point!

It works out by definition, it works out in math, and it works out in science and matter. Mother + Fetus = A Single Person! You ask where to draw the line? Well how about at the ACTUAL LINE also known as the umbilical cord! Jeesh..
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 1:50:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:51:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
My question is, if you personally think life is so bad, why are you still alive?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 2:56:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 9:24:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 8:26:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
The point is that I choose to be alive. The fetus can't choose.
That being said, the parents chose to become prego in the first place (most of the time at least).
I don't really think that argument is particularly good.

It's a horrible argument.

Next time you're asleep, someone could choose to kill you, because you're not conscious, so you can't choose to live... right?


It's horrible to me that we take such a stance on innocent life... I literally cannot comprehend how someone could contemplate killing a fetus at any stage, without a severe reason to do so. I'm simply appalled by people who think it is ok to kill a 40 week-old baby, just because it hasn't been birthed yet.

There are plenty of cases in which i support killing innocent life. Broccoli, for example.

Somebody call this person the wahmbulance, for he is appalled.

The fetus is absolutely part of the mother, and the mother has a right to choose. Your reasoning behind your argument is overwhelmingly clear, that is: You feel like it's wrong, but you do not know nor can you explain why that is. Well, I believe that humans have the right to make a choice about their own bodies, and until the fetus is separated from the mother, it is not its own person.

Consider a chicken egg. Regardless of what stage the embryo exists in, it is an embryo all the while until it hatches, at which moment it is considered a chicken. You can't look at the egg from a distance and claim, "well.. there's a chicken inside there." That would be false, because it isn't a chicken, it's an egg containing a chicken fetus. The chicken doesn't exist until it as hatched, in any moments leading up to that singular event, the object is still an egg. There are many vague milestones in the development of the embryo, but why base the cutoff point at in a vague area, why not an undeniably obvious one?

Your argument is based on the notion that a fetus undoubtably results in a human, and since that is not true 100% of the time, it isn't a valid claim.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:06:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 12:51:10 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
person |ˈpərsən|
noun ( pl. people |ˈpēpəl| or persons )
1 a human being regarded as an individual : the porter was the last person to see her | she is a person of astonishing energy.
" used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual : the entrance fee is $10.00 per person.

A fetus is an individual. There are no others like it.

human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

The first section covers a fetus. The rest are attributes of a human but not all posses everyone of them.

Now tell me, what is it about a fetus that either suggests that it is a person, or even a human being by definition? As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is not a person until the cord has been cut, and by definition the fetus is a part of the mother until that point!

It works out by definition, it works out in math, and it works out in science and matter. Mother + Fetus = A Single Person! You ask where to draw the line? Well how about at the ACTUAL LINE also known as the umbilical cord! Jeesh..

This is probably one of the worst pro-choice arguments I have seen. Every definition I could find said a fetus is a developing animal of the species. Not part of the mother.

A fetus is a human being in the first stage of it's life. Life begins at conception and continues until you die, everything in between are stages. Some are longer then others and things change.

I didn't pay much attention in biology but I'm pretty sure the fertilized egg is completely free of attachment to the mother before it attaches to the wall of the uterus. I don't know exactly when cell start replicating or what ever they do but at the point of conception human life begins.

You are right that every fertilized egg may not continue to develop, but I know for sure that if you suck it through a tube into a vat it will die. I'm not positive I will see 85, or five minutes from now. But that doesn't mean I'm not human.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:16:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 8:26:36 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
The point is that I choose to be alive. The fetus can't choose.
That being said, the parents chose to become prego in the first place (most of the time at least).
I don't really think that argument is particularly good.

But you're still depriving it of the opportunity to choose.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:24:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:06:27 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:51:10 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
person |ˈpərsən|
noun ( pl. people |ˈpēpəl| or persons )
1 a human being regarded as an individual : the porter was the last person to see her | she is a person of astonishing energy.
" used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual : the entrance fee is $10.00 per person.

A fetus is an individual. There are no others like it.

That's the definition of being unique, not being an individual. An individual exists on its own.

human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

The first section covers a fetus. The rest are attributes of a human but not all posses everyone of them.

I suppose this is subjective.

Now tell me, what is it about a fetus that either suggests that it is a person, or even a human being by definition? As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is not a person until the cord has been cut, and by definition the fetus is a part of the mother until that point!

It works out by definition, it works out in math, and it works out in science and matter. Mother + Fetus = A Single Person! You ask where to draw the line? Well how about at the ACTUAL LINE also known as the umbilical cord! Jeesh..

This is probably one of the worst pro-choice arguments I have seen. Every definition I could find said a fetus is a developing animal of the species. Not part of the mother.

It is first of all connected to the mother. I don't know how else to define a part of... at least not more obviously and literally than that. What is the problem with ending a life before it becomes conscious? Is not as if the life was conscious at one point, and now isn't. It is a different scenario then that.

It is clearly a part of the mother, for if it weren't, it couldn't survive.

A fetus is a human being in the first stage of it's life. Life begins at conception and continues until you die, everything in between are stages. Some are longer then others and things change.

Life has no beginning or end, it is infinite. Look at the universe around you. There are no starts or stops. You're looking at life from a narrow lens as if humans are the only form of it. We kill life every single moment of everyday in some form or another, and humans are no more special than anything else in this world.

I didn't pay much attention in biology but I'm pretty sure the fertilized egg is completely free of attachment to the mother before it attaches to the wall of the uterus. I don't know exactly when cell start replicating or what ever they do but at the point of conception human life begins.

Oh, so it just floats around in the void???

You are right that every fertilized egg may not continue to develop, but I know for sure that if you suck it through a tube into a vat it will die. I'm not positive I will see 85, or five minutes from now. But that doesn't mean I'm not human.

Being human doesn't guarantee you more of a right to live than any other life form, first of all. None of us are 'special'.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:36:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:57:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.

Saying that a fetus might go hungry is no different than saying you might go hungry.

If you are doing the fetus a favor, someone would be doing you a favor by saving you from any potential hardship in the future too.

You're still ignoring my point. So I highlighted it this time.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:39:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/12/2012 2:51:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I have a question, but I don't know if it will apply to anyone here.

I have heard the argument in favor of abortion, that life sucks so much that it's kind of doing the fetus a favor, or it might be born into a family that doesn't love it, or go hungry, etc...

My question is, if you personally think life is so bad, why are you still alive?

Those are not the major arguments for abortion. The biggest ones are that fetuses are not human beings, and women have a right to their own bodies.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:45:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:06:27 PM, jharry wrote:

A fetus is a human being in the first stage of it's life. Life begins at conception and continues until you die, everything in between are stages. Some are longer then others and things change.

I think this argument is both wrong and misguided. It's wrong because sperm and eggs are alive, so you are wrong to say that conception brings life to non-alive ingredients.

I also think it is misguided, because you're missing the point of what life is. What's happening here, and what is happening every time modern Christians attempt to put the hammer down on defining something of science (which they're great at, of course), is that you are arbitrarily making up the rules. Life starts at conception? That only makes sense if you are trying to make that work with the hypothesis that God is instilling a soul into the embryo. It wouldn't make sense for sperm and eggs to have souls, and it wouldn't make sense for the soul to happen at birth, so conception is the most convenient spot for YOU because of your peculiar belief system. The important aspect of personhood isn't the mere fact that we are humans that are alive, it is that we are sentient beings. If you take the raw materials that make a house they are almost worthless; but after being refined and organized they can take the form of a very valuable and useful building. Humans have value for their intricacy and complexity, specifically of our brain, which yields conscious thought. It's straightforward, therefore, to assume that an early embryo, like a pile of logs waiting to be milled and used in the construction of a home, are of relatively little value compared to a baby that's been 9 months developed and birthed. I'm comfortable moving that line back a couple months just to be safe (the baby's brain is quite complex just before birth) but to say that a sperm and egg newly formed is just as equal as you or I is pretty silly.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:50:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:39:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:51:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I have a question, but I don't know if it will apply to anyone here.

I have heard the argument in favor of abortion, that life sucks so much that it's kind of doing the fetus a favor, or it might be born into a family that doesn't love it, or go hungry, etc...

My question is, if you personally think life is so bad, why are you still alive?

Those are not the major arguments for abortion. The biggest ones are that fetuses are not human beings, and women have a right to their own bodies.

What is the point in posting that?

I made a thread specifically to address one argument. Learn to stay on topic.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:51:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:36:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:57:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.

Saying that a fetus might go hungry is no different than saying you might go hungry.

If you are doing the fetus a favor, someone would be doing you a favor by saving you from any potential hardship in the future too.

You're still ignoring my point. So I highlighted it this time.

Not really, but if you can't understand, that's ok.

If it is merciful to keep the fetus from having to live through possible poverty and hunger, then it is merciful to keep other humans from having to possibly live through poverty and hunger.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:57:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:45:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:06:27 PM, jharry wrote:

A fetus is a human being in the first stage of it's life. Life begins at conception and continues until you die, everything in between are stages. Some are longer then others and things change.

I think this argument is both wrong and misguided. It's wrong because sperm and eggs are alive, so you are wrong to say that conception brings life to non-alive ingredients.

I also think it is misguided, because you're missing the point of what life is. What's happening here, and what is happening every time modern Christians attempt to put the hammer down on defining something of science (which they're great at, of course), is that you are arbitrarily making up the rules. Life starts at conception? That only makes sense if you are trying to make that work with the hypothesis that God is instilling a soul into the embryo. It wouldn't make sense for sperm and eggs to have souls, and it wouldn't make sense for the soul to happen at birth, so conception is the most convenient spot for YOU because of your peculiar belief system. The important aspect of personhood isn't the mere fact that we are humans that are alive, it is that we are sentient beings. If you take the raw materials that make a house they are almost worthless; but after being refined and organized they can take the form of a very valuable and useful building. Humans have value for their intricacy and complexity, specifically of our brain, which yields conscious thought. It's straightforward, therefore, to assume that an early embryo, like a pile of logs waiting to be milled and used in the construction of a home, are of relatively little value compared to a baby that's been 9 months developed and birthed. I'm comfortable moving that line back a couple months just to be safe (the baby's brain is quite complex just before birth) but to say that a sperm and egg newly formed is just as equal as you or I is pretty silly.

Exactly. Conception is a convenient spot for some people to base their idea of where life starts, (Even though life is infinite) and it's all based on their emotional views. The difference between killing someone that's in a coma and killing a fetus is that, the person in a coma held a relevance to society in some form and therefore the emotional boundaries are set much much higher. Anther point is that we don't know if the person in the coma knows what is going on or not, whereas we know that fetuses do not become conscious until after birth.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 8:58:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:50:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:39:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:51:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I have a question, but I don't know if it will apply to anyone here.

I have heard the argument in favor of abortion, that life sucks so much that it's kind of doing the fetus a favor, or it might be born into a family that doesn't love it, or go hungry, etc...

My question is, if you personally think life is so bad, why are you still alive?

Those are not the major arguments for abortion. The biggest ones are that fetuses are not human beings, and women have a right to their own bodies.

What is the point in posting that?

I made a thread specifically to address one argument. Learn to stay on topic.

Practically nobody uses the arguments you are attacking. So what is the point of this thread?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:05:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:58:07 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:50:11 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:39:27 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:51:03 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I have a question, but I don't know if it will apply to anyone here.

I have heard the argument in favor of abortion, that life sucks so much that it's kind of doing the fetus a favor, or it might be born into a family that doesn't love it, or go hungry, etc...

My question is, if you personally think life is so bad, why are you still alive?

Those are not the major arguments for abortion. The biggest ones are that fetuses are not human beings, and women have a right to their own bodies.

What is the point in posting that?

I made a thread specifically to address one argument. Learn to stay on topic.

Practically nobody uses the arguments you are attacking. So what is the point of this thread?

Because [b]people do use that argument[/b]. It's been used here before(not sure if anybody that has used it is still active. That's why I put in the first line.)

You're not adding anything to the thread... do you just like going off-topic?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:57:18 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:45:12 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:06:27 PM, jharry wrote:

A fetus is a human being in the first stage of it's life. Life begins at conception and continues until you die, everything in between are stages. Some are longer then others and things change.

I think this argument is both wrong and misguided. It's wrong because sperm and eggs are alive, so you are wrong to say that conception brings life to non-alive ingredients.

I also think it is misguided, because you're missing the point of what life is. What's happening here, and what is happening every time modern Christians attempt to put the hammer down on defining something of science (which they're great at, of course), is that you are arbitrarily making up the rules. Life starts at conception? That only makes sense if you are trying to make that work with the hypothesis that God is instilling a soul into the embryo. It wouldn't make sense for sperm and eggs to have souls, and it wouldn't make sense for the soul to happen at birth, so conception is the most convenient spot for YOU because of your peculiar belief system. The important aspect of personhood isn't the mere fact that we are humans that are alive, it is that we are sentient beings. If you take the raw materials that make a house they are almost worthless; but after being refined and organized they can take the form of a very valuable and useful building. Humans have value for their intricacy and complexity, specifically of our brain, which yields conscious thought. It's straightforward, therefore, to assume that an early embryo, like a pile of logs waiting to be milled and used in the construction of a home, are of relatively little value compared to a baby that's been 9 months developed and birthed. I'm comfortable moving that line back a couple months just to be safe (the baby's brain is quite complex just before birth) but to say that a sperm and egg newly formed is just as equal as you or I is pretty silly.

Exactly. Conception is a convenient spot for some people to base their idea of where life starts, (Even though life is infinite) and it's all based on their emotional views. The difference between killing someone that's in a coma and killing a fetus is that, the person in a coma held a relevance to society in some form and therefore the emotional boundaries are set much much higher. Anther point is that we don't know if the person in the coma knows what is going on or not, whereas we know that fetuses do not become conscious until after birth.

How do we know that fetuses are unconscious right before they are conceived?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:18:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:06:27 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/13/2012 12:51:10 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
person |ˈpərsən|
noun ( pl. people |ˈpēpəl| or persons )
1 a human being regarded as an individual : the porter was the last person to see her | she is a person of astonishing energy.
" used in legal or formal contexts to refer to an unspecified individual : the entrance fee is $10.00 per person.

A fetus is an individual. There are no others like it.

human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

The first section covers a fetus. The rest are attributes of a human but not all posses everyone of them.

Now tell me, what is it about a fetus that either suggests that it is a person, or even a human being by definition? As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is not a person until the cord has been cut, and by definition the fetus is a part of the mother until that point!

It works out by definition, it works out in math, and it works out in science and matter. Mother + Fetus = A Single Person! You ask where to draw the line? Well how about at the ACTUAL LINE also known as the umbilical cord! Jeesh..

This is probably one of the worst pro-choice arguments I have seen. Every definition I could find said a fetus is a developing animal of the species. Not part of the mother.

A fetus is a human being in the first stage of it's life. Life begins at conception and continues until you die, everything in between are stages. Some are longer then others and things change.

I didn't pay much attention in biology but I'm pretty sure the fertilized egg is completely free of attachment to the mother before it attaches to the wall of the uterus. I don't know exactly when cell start replicating or what ever they do but at the point of conception human life begins.

You are right that every fertilized egg may not continue to develop, but I know for sure that if you suck it through a tube into a vat it will die. I'm not positive I will see 85, or five minutes from now. But that doesn't mean I'm not human.

Right after conception, the fetus is just a collection of cells. Do you seriously think this is a human being with all the rights that comes?
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:44:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 8:51:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:36:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:57:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.

Saying that a fetus might go hungry is no different than saying you might go hungry.

If you are doing the fetus a favor, someone would be doing you a favor by saving you from any potential hardship in the future too.

You're still ignoring my point. So I highlighted it this time.

Not really, but if you can't understand, that's ok.

If it is merciful to keep the fetus from having to live through possible poverty and hunger, then it is merciful to keep other humans from having to possibly live through poverty and hunger.

Ok, I'll try one more time. For certain unborn babies, it is a certainty that they will face hunger, and furthermore that they will remain poor for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether or not it is their fault. I am alive and I have no reason whatsoever to think that I will be poor and hungry any time soon, and nobody would have thought before I was born that I was going to be poor and hungry. So there never was and never will be any reason to think that it would be merciful to kill me or anyone else in similar circumstances.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 9:48:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The point isn't that life sucks, it's that life success is a large part predicated on upbringing and environment and parents think that the environment they'd bring their kid into would be so bad as to merit them just not having the kid at all. You can argue against that position possibly, but stop strawmanning it pl0z.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 9:44:32 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:51:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:36:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:57:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.

Saying that a fetus might go hungry is no different than saying you might go hungry.

If you are doing the fetus a favor, someone would be doing you a favor by saving you from any potential hardship in the future too.

You're still ignoring my point. So I highlighted it this time.

Not really, but if you can't understand, that's ok.

If it is merciful to keep the fetus from having to live through possible poverty and hunger, then it is merciful to keep other humans from having to possibly live through poverty and hunger.

Ok, I'll try one more time. For certain unborn babies, it is a certainty that they will face hunger, and furthermore that they will remain poor for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether or not it is their fault. I am alive and I have no reason whatsoever to think that I will be poor and hungry any time soon, and nobody would have thought before I was born that I was going to be poor and hungry. So there never was and never will be any reason to think that it would be merciful to kill me or anyone else in similar circumstances.

So why don't we allow free suicides for people born into poverty and hunger? They are better off dead anyway.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 10:52:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:11:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:44:32 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:51:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:36:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:57:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.

Saying that a fetus might go hungry is no different than saying you might go hungry.

If you are doing the fetus a favor, someone would be doing you a favor by saving you from any potential hardship in the future too.

You're still ignoring my point. So I highlighted it this time.

Not really, but if you can't understand, that's ok.

If it is merciful to keep the fetus from having to live through possible poverty and hunger, then it is merciful to keep other humans from having to possibly live through poverty and hunger.

Ok, I'll try one more time. For certain unborn babies, it is a certainty that they will face hunger, and furthermore that they will remain poor for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether or not it is their fault. I am alive and I have no reason whatsoever to think that I will be poor and hungry any time soon, and nobody would have thought before I was born that I was going to be poor and hungry. So there never was and never will be any reason to think that it would be merciful to kill me or anyone else in similar circumstances.

So why don't we allow free suicides for people born into poverty and hunger? They are better off dead anyway.

Because our society currently operates on the assumption that abortion is allowable and assisted suicide is not. They can kill themselves if they want to anyway, nobody's stopping them.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:01:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 10:52:32 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 10:11:40 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 10/13/2012 9:44:32 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:51:49 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/13/2012 8:36:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:57:10 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 10/12/2012 2:55:33 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
There is a difference (which you are ignoring) between saying that aborting a fetus that would be born into poverty and hunger is an act of mercy and saying that there is no point in living at all.

Saying that a fetus might go hungry is no different than saying you might go hungry.

If you are doing the fetus a favor, someone would be doing you a favor by saving you from any potential hardship in the future too.

You're still ignoring my point. So I highlighted it this time.

Not really, but if you can't understand, that's ok.

If it is merciful to keep the fetus from having to live through possible poverty and hunger, then it is merciful to keep other humans from having to possibly live through poverty and hunger.

Ok, I'll try one more time. For certain unborn babies, it is a certainty that they will face hunger, and furthermore that they will remain poor for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether or not it is their fault. I am alive and I have no reason whatsoever to think that I will be poor and hungry any time soon, and nobody would have thought before I was born that I was going to be poor and hungry. So there never was and never will be any reason to think that it would be merciful to kill me or anyone else in similar circumstances.

So why don't we allow free suicides for people born into poverty and hunger? They are better off dead anyway.

Because our society currently operates on the assumption that abortion is allowable and assisted suicide is not. They can kill themselves if they want to anyway, nobody's stopping them.

So the pro-choice position is an assumption? Now that is something I can agree with.