Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion?

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 6:19:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Use critical thinking and come up with your positions and why?

Lets learn and share.

Critical Thinking: A collection of skills we use everyday that re necessary for our intellectual and personal development.

Logic: the study of the methods and principals used to distinguish correct or good arguments from poor arguments.

(They go hand in hand)

LETS NOT USE,

Opinion: A belief based solely on personal feelings rather than on reason and facts

*Remember that critically thinking means that we are willing to work towards overcoming personal prejudice and biases, in other words open-minded skepticism.*
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 6:25:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Positions:

- People ought not be killed unless they have proven themselves grossly inhumane and a serious danger to others

- There is no good reason to say that late-term babes in the womb aren't people, as they can think and learn
- They ought be treated as people

. Late term babes ought not be killed
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 6:26:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 6:25:05 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Positions:

- People ought not be killed unless they have proven themselves grossly inhumane and a serious danger to others

Though I guess I'd hold war as an exception, especially any defensive engagement.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 9:23:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 6:26:30 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/19/2010 6:25:05 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Positions:

- People ought not be killed unless they have proven themselves grossly inhumane and a serious danger to others

Though I guess I'd hold war as an exception, especially any defensive engagement.

Defending yourself from an invader you mean?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 9:58:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 9:23:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Defending yourself from an invader you mean?

lol, didn't we have this conversation??

In, most cases out of the two people at hand only one was an intelligent actor at the time of "invasion" and only plausibly one's fault/responsibility for said "invasion", plus throwing out the welcome mat, and inviting in visitors is kind of asking to have little guys left behind.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 10:09:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 9:58:35 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/19/2010 9:23:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Defending yourself from an invader you mean?

lol, didn't we have this conversation??
Maybe, I've had it with a lot of people. But you walked right the **** into it. Don't walk into a brick wall if you don't want a concussin.


In, most cases out of the two people at hand only one was an intelligent actor at the time of "invasion"
Bacteria invade without being intelligent actors.

and only plausibly one's fault/responsibility for said "invasion"
Nah, it's the condom manufacturer's fault. :).

, plus throwing out the welcome mat, and inviting in visitors is kind of asking to have little guys left behind.
No, it isn't. A person who sticks around when the party is over and tries to mooch is overstepping the invitation. A person who steps out of the party room and breaks into someone's safe is going even further.

Btw, in what sense do you mean " think and learn?" A rat learns. But you still kill it. Even if you did drop crumbs on the floor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 10:26:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 10:09:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/19/2010 9:58:35 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/19/2010 9:23:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Defending yourself from an invader you mean?

lol, didn't we have this conversation??
Maybe, I've had it with a lot of people. But you walked right the **** into it. Don't walk into a brick wall if you don't want a concussin.



In, most cases out of the two people at hand only one was an intelligent actor at the time of "invasion"
Bacteria invade without being intelligent actors.

and only plausibly one's fault/responsibility for said "invasion"
Nah, it's the condom manufacturer's fault. :).
There can be degrees of fault, the person who didn't yet exist is quite blameless, whereas the mother, in most cases, played a part (either weighing risks, or being negligent)

, plus throwing out the welcome mat, and inviting in visitors is kind of asking to have little guys left behind.
No, it isn't. A person who sticks around when the party is over and tries to mooch is overstepping the invitation. A person who steps out of the party room and breaks into someone's safe is going even further.

Make that a person who only exists b/c the mother did certain things, and allowed certain processes to take place which led to it's existence and it's being dependent on the mother.

The person who gets invited to the ski lodge by the host, whilst unbeknownst to them (and known to the host), a deadly snowstorm rages outside, then the host says: 'ok, stays over, time to leave' and boots that person out in the deadly storm. That "knowing" host is violating, and one might (in this hypothetical case) argue murdering that guest.


Btw, in what sense do you mean " think and learn?" A rat learns. But you still kill it. Even if you did drop crumbs on the floor.

Well a rat is clearly not a person,
how is a babe of 8 months not?

I don't necessarily have a definition of "person", but I have seen no reason why most 8 month babes wouldn't qualify.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 10:29:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 10:09:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Bacteria invade without being intelligent actors.

1. they weren't usually invited
2. they don't become intelligent when carried for a while
3. Even if they were both of the above the 'inviter' most likely was not knowledgeable of (2) when they fulfilled (1), and would arguably not be responsible for taking that into consideration
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 10:50:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A fetus does not possess the qualities that are present in persons-- e.g. self consciousness, reasoning, and the ability to hold preferences. Ergo, a fetus does not hold a right to life because it is not a person with a desire to continue living.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2010 10:55:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 10:26:10 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
No, it isn't. A person who sticks around when the party is over and tries to mooch is overstepping the invitation. A person who steps out of the party room and breaks into someone's safe is going even further.

Make that a person who only exists b/c the mother did certain things, and allowed certain processes to take place which led to it's existence and it's being dependent on the mother.
The person who sticks around or thieves as a result of a party is only in that situation because the host did something. This does not mean what the host did justifies what the person did.


The person who gets invited to the ski lodge by the host, whilst unbeknownst to them (and known to the host), a deadly snowstorm rages outside, then the host says: 'ok, stays over, time to leave' and boots that person out in the deadly storm. That "knowing" host is violating, and one might (in this hypothetical case) argue murdering that guest.
Not unless the host specified a time of stay :).



Btw, in what sense do you mean " think and learn?" A rat learns. But you still kill it. Even if you did drop crumbs on the floor.

Well a rat is clearly not a person,
It learns. It has a semblance of awareness. It's not rational, but neither is a baby.

how is a babe of 8 months not?
Same way the rat isn't. Lack of rationality.


I don't necessarily have a definition of "person"
Any argument based on a certain status needs to have a definition of that status.

1. they weren't usually invited
Bacteria? Yes they were, eating, breating, etc.

2. they don't become intelligent when carried for a while
I wouldn't describe a newborn as intelligent-- or more precisely, rational. Let alone a fetus.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:06:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I can go off on a tangent about this, but it's late, so I'll just say this:

Abortion will never end, and illegal abortions will be unsafe. Putting an "end" to abortion would also require penalizing desperate women/doctors. The government should not have control over what goes on in someone's body.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:10:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 12:06:53 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
I can go off on a tangent about this, but it's late, so I'll just say this:

Abortion will never end, and illegal abortions will be unsafe. Putting an "end" to abortion would also require penalizing desperate women/doctors. The government should not have control over what goes on in someone's body.

Yea, that's the thing. Even with abortion being illegal people will still do it. Which is better? Having it done legally and safely or using the illegal coat-hanger method which could cause further damage? I'm sure most sensible people would choose the former.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:35:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 12:10:16 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:06:53 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
I can go off on a tangent about this, but it's late, so I'll just say this:

Abortion will never end, and illegal abortions will be unsafe. Putting an "end" to abortion would also require penalizing desperate women/doctors. The government should not have control over what goes on in someone's body.

Yea, that's the thing. Even with abortion being illegal people will still do it. Which is better? Having it done legally and safely or using the illegal coat-hanger method which could cause further damage? I'm sure most sensible people would choose the former.

Uh, that's a terrible argument. Murder is still illegal yet people still do it. Should we legalize it to make it more safe because people will do it anyway?

You beg the question - if the fetus really is a person it doesn't matter if people will still get abortions if it's outlawed - it should still be illegal in the vast majority of cases.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:41:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 12:35:12 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:10:16 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:06:53 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
I can go off on a tangent about this, but it's late, so I'll just say this:

Abortion will never end, and illegal abortions will be unsafe. Putting an "end" to abortion would also require penalizing desperate women/doctors. The government should not have control over what goes on in someone's body.

Yea, that's the thing. Even with abortion being illegal people will still do it. Which is better? Having it done legally and safely or using the illegal coat-hanger method which could cause further damage? I'm sure most sensible people would choose the former.

Uh, that's a terrible argument. Murder is still illegal yet people still do it. Should we legalize it to make it more safe because people will do it anyway?

You beg the question - if the fetus really is a person it doesn't matter if people will still get abortions if it's outlawed - it should still be illegal in the vast majority of cases.

Oh, so then I guess that locking post abortive women up must be the solution to everything.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:46:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 12:41:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:

Oh, so then I guess that locking post abortive women up must be the solution to everything.

Oh, so I guess you aren't going to offer a real rebuttal? That's cool.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:56:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 12:46:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:41:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:

Oh, so then I guess that locking post abortive women up must be the solution to everything.

Oh, so I guess you aren't going to offer a real rebuttal? That's cool.

The whole point I was trying to make was that what might be "murder" to you is not "murder" to someone else. The whole purpose of choice is to decide when life begins, what makes "a person," morality, etc, etc. This is why all the scientific debate on technicalities of what makes "a person" is pointless, because there is no final answer. Obviously, a fetus is not the exact same thing as a human. Under that logic, if a fetus literally had the same exact traits as a person who was born, then ripping the fetus/cells right out of the womb eight months before it's born and raising it should nurture just fine, which is obviously untrue. This is really all we know about "when life begins" or what differentiates fetuses and those who have already been born. Otherwise, the argument that abortion is "murdering full, legitimate humans" is highly unreasonable.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 1:21:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 12:56:38 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:46:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:41:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:

Oh, so then I guess that locking post abortive women up must be the solution to everything.

Oh, so I guess you aren't going to offer a real rebuttal? That's cool.

The whole point I was trying to make was that what might be "murder" to you is not "murder" to someone else. The whole purpose of choice is to decide when life begins, what makes "a person," morality, etc, etc. This is why all the scientific debate on technicalities of what makes "a person" is pointless, because there is no final answer. Obviously, a fetus is not the exact same thing as a human. Under that logic, if a fetus literally had the same exact traits as a person who was born, then ripping the fetus/cells right out of the womb eight months before it's born and raising it should nurture just fine, which is obviously untrue. This is really all we know about "when life begins" or what differentiates fetuses and those who have already been born. Otherwise, the argument that abortion is "murdering full, legitimate humans" is highly unreasonable.

really? we get to define "murder" ourselves? So when someone kills another person it is okay because the one that did the killing says "I don't consider it murder."

I enjoy the way it is always related to "murder" and that it must be either legalized or treated as murder. Though we already have tons of different laws (and different penalties) for the killing of humans (murder, manslaughter, and tons of different degrees of each).

A fetuses and embryos are 100% human DNA which, left in their natural habitat will become a human baby (unlike skin cells, so don't even bring them into it). I think we can all agree that they are human (though you're more then welcome to disagree, I'd love to see that, "fetuses aren't humans") and the heart starts beating around 5 weeks old and can be heard as early as 7 weeks, the beating of a heart justifies (to me at least) that it is alive. It may not be able to survive on it's own, but that makes no difference.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 5:47:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 10:50:28 PM, Freeman wrote:
Ergo, a fetus does not hold a right to life because it is not a person with a desire to continue living.

So a person who doesn't 'care' to live ought be killable w/o consequence?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 6:14:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ergo, a fetus does not hold a right to life because it is not a person with a desire to continue living.

And so a severely mentally disabled person does not of a right to life? Or how about a person in a coma? That is a very bad way to look at the debate.

My greedy person preference is for abortions to be legal, why? Well this might sound horrible but I think it is very pragmatic, many babies born who would have otherwise been aborted will turn out being burdens on society instead of contributors (in many cases they are born to parents who will not put in the effort to create successful children).

Now logically the most compelling argument I have seen is this: The governments fundamental mandate is to support life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That being said, I have never seen a satisfactory definition of "life" that the government could use to allow abortion.

As pointed out previously, does a desire to live constitute life? Well if this is the case we have mentally handicapped, comatose, and senile people who have no right to life. Does being able to survive "on your own" constitute life? Well young children, the extremely ill, handicapped, etc can't do this either. The only option I am left with is using a very broad definition of "life" which includes fetuses as well.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 6:22:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/19/2010 10:55:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/19/2010 10:26:10 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
No, it isn't. A person who sticks around when the party is over and tries to mooch is overstepping the invitation. A person who steps out of the party room and breaks into someone's safe is going even further.

Make that a person who only exists b/c the mother did certain things, and allowed certain processes to take place which led to it's existence and it's being dependent on the mother.
The person who sticks around or thieves as a result of a party is only in that situation because the host did something. This does not mean what the host did justifies what the person did.

If the host knew from the get-go that that "thieving" was a necessity for the continued existence of the guest, and is a direct result of a natural process which occurs due to the Nature(physical) of their guest, and natural processes due to the environment the host invited them to.

Then that host is guilty of murder for having known before the invitation that they would throw their 'guest' out in the deadly snowstorm if he happened to accept the invitation.

plus w/ abortions, if you get one right away, or in the first few months, you avoid killing someone b/c of your prior actions and their current dependence. If you wait too long your killing someone b/c your actions, and lack thereof, have made them exist and made them dependent.

The person who gets invited to the ski lodge by the host, whilst unbeknownst to them (and known to the host), a deadly snowstorm rages outside, then the host says: 'ok, stays over, time to leave' and boots that person out in the deadly storm. That "knowing" host is violating, and one might (in this hypothetical case) argue murdering that guest.
Not unless the host specified a time of stay :).
The Nature of that thing invited specifies that, as the host knew.

Btw, in what sense do you mean " think and learn?" A rat learns. But you still kill it. Even if you did drop crumbs on the floor.

Well a rat is clearly not a person,
It learns. It has a semblance of awareness. It's not rational, but neither is a baby.

how is a babe of 8 months not?
Same way the rat isn't. Lack of rationality.

o.k. so babes of 9, 10, 11 months aren't people, and ought be able to be killed at will by those they're dependent upon

I don't necessarily have a definition of "person"
Any argument based on a certain status needs to have a definition of that status.
ok, A non-asserted, loose definition, of being a conscious human.

1. they weren't usually invited
Bacteria? Yes they were, eating, breating, etc.

2. they don't become intelligent when carried for a while
I wouldn't describe a newborn as intelligent-- or more precisely, rational. Let alone a fetus.

A fetus of 8.1/2 months might not "know" all too much, but is a learning machine on hyperdrive. It's not yet knowledgeable, but it has capacity.

I would assume; Rationality comes from being able to sort, and consider, that knowledge you do have. Naturally with extremely limited knowledge, and a lack of practice dealing with it, such a babe might not be able to make what we would think the "rational" choice based on our evidence and experience, but that would be b/c they have had a lack of evidence and practice, the rationality of the choice doesn't lie in the choice itself, but in the thinker who chooses it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 6:25:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 12:56:38 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:46:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:41:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:

Oh, so then I guess that locking post abortive women up must be the solution to everything.

Oh, so I guess you aren't going to offer a real rebuttal? That's cool.

The whole point I was trying to make was that what might be "murder" to you is not "murder" to someone else. The whole purpose of choice is to decide when life begins, what makes "a person," morality, etc, etc. This is why all the scientific debate on technicalities of what makes "a person" is pointless, because there is no final answer. Obviously, a fetus is not the exact same thing as a human.

what's the inherent diff. between an 8.1/2 month babe and a 9 month old one??
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 6:27:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 6:14:55 AM, Floid wrote:
Ergo, a fetus does not hold a right to life because it is not a person with a desire to continue living.

And so a severely mentally disabled person does not of a right to life? Or how about a person in a coma? That is a very bad way to look at the debate.

My greedy person preference is for abortions to be legal, why? Well this might sound horrible but I think it is very pragmatic, many babies born who would have otherwise been aborted will turn out being burdens on society instead of contributors

lol, that could also justify killing people generally, like all those burdens on society
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 10:19:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 1:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:56:38 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:46:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:41:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:

Oh, so then I guess that locking post abortive women up must be the solution to everything.

Oh, so I guess you aren't going to offer a real rebuttal? That's cool.

The whole point I was trying to make was that what might be "murder" to you is not "murder" to someone else. The whole purpose of choice is to decide when life begins, what makes "a person," morality, etc, etc. This is why all the scientific debate on technicalities of what makes "a person" is pointless, because there is no final answer. Obviously, a fetus is not the exact same thing as a human. Under that logic, if a fetus literally had the same exact traits as a person who was born, then ripping the fetus/cells right out of the womb eight months before it's born and raising it should nurture just fine, which is obviously untrue. This is really all we know about "when life begins" or what differentiates fetuses and those who have already been born. Otherwise, the argument that abortion is "murdering full, legitimate humans" is highly unreasonable.

A fetuses and embryos are 100% human DNA which, left in their natural habitat will become a human baby (unlike skin cells, so don't even bring them into it).

One big giant technicality. The debate isn't necessarily about the science, but about one's own definition of when life begins, this being, at conception or at birth. Regardless, getting big government to control what goes on in our bodies/reproductive lives is simply too much. People need to consider their observations of when life begins, and take full control of what goes in their own bodies.

Look at the YT video, for those of you who truly believe abortion is "murder."
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 11:36:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 1:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
A fetuses and embryos are 100% human DNA which, left in their natural habitat will become a human baby (unlike skin cells, so don't even bring them into it). I think we can all agree that they are human (though you're more then welcome to disagree, I'd love to see that, "fetuses aren't humans") and the heart starts beating around 5 weeks old and can be heard as early as 7 weeks, the beating of a heart justifies (to me at least) that it is alive. It may not be able to survive on it's own, but that makes no difference.

I think tat that was well put.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 11:39:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 6:14:55 AM, Floid wrote:
Ergo, a fetus does not hold a right to life because it is not a person with a desire to continue living.

And so a severely mentally disabled person does not of a right to life? Or how about a person in a coma? That is a very bad way to look at the debate.

My greedy person preference is for abortions to be legal, why? Well this might sound horrible but I think it is very pragmatic, many babies born who would have otherwise been aborted will turn out being burdens on society instead of contributors (in many cases they are born to parents who will not put in the effort to create successful children).

Now logically the most compelling argument I have seen is this: The governments fundamental mandate is to support life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That being said, I have never seen a satisfactory definition of "life" that the government could use to allow abortion.

As pointed out previously, does a desire to live constitute life? Well if this is the case we have mentally handicapped, comatose, and senile people who have no right to life. Does being able to survive "on your own" constitute life? Well young children, the extremely ill, handicapped, etc can't do this either. The only option I am left with is using a very broad definition of "life" which includes fetuses as well.

Bravo!
I think this explains, to some extent, the way i feel as well.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 11:40:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 10:19:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
One big giant technicality. The debate isn't necessarily about the science, but about one's own definition of when life begins, this being, at conception or at birth. Regardless, getting big government to control what goes on in our bodies/reproductive lives is simply too much. People need to consider their observations of when life begins, and take full control of what goes in their own bodies.


But with out science what kind of logic can you procure?
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:04:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 11:40:47 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/20/2010 10:19:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
One big giant technicality. The debate isn't necessarily about the science, but about one's own definition of when life begins, this being, at conception or at birth. Regardless, getting big government to control what goes on in our bodies/reproductive lives is simply too much. People need to consider their observations of when life begins, and take full control of what goes in their own bodies.


But with out science what kind of logic can you procure?

Morality.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:10:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 10:19:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
At 1/20/2010 1:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:56:38 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:46:13 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/20/2010 12:41:16 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:

Oh, so then I guess that locking post abortive women up must be the solution to everything.

Oh, so I guess you aren't going to offer a real rebuttal? That's cool.

The whole point I was trying to make was that what might be "murder" to you is not "murder" to someone else. The whole purpose of choice is to decide when life begins, what makes "a person," morality, etc, etc. This is why all the scientific debate on technicalities of what makes "a person" is pointless, because there is no final answer. Obviously, a fetus is not the exact same thing as a human. Under that logic, if a fetus literally had the same exact traits as a person who was born, then ripping the fetus/cells right out of the womb eight months before it's born and raising it should nurture just fine, which is obviously untrue. This is really all we know about "when life begins" or what differentiates fetuses and those who have already been born. Otherwise, the argument that abortion is "murdering full, legitimate humans" is highly unreasonable.

A fetuses and embryos are 100% human DNA which, left in their natural habitat will become a human baby (unlike skin cells, so don't even bring them into it).

One big giant technicality. The debate isn't necessarily about the science, but about one's own definition of when life begins, this being, at conception or at birth. Regardless, getting big government to control what goes on in our bodies/reproductive lives is simply too much. People need to consider their observations of when life begins, and take full control of what goes in their own bodies.

Look at the YT video, for those of you who truly believe abortion is "murder."


Well, I told you mine, it is alive when the heart starts beating. Since that is how doctors measure life most commonly (second being brain activity).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:40:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 6:22:48 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 1/19/2010 10:55:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/19/2010 10:26:10 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
No, it isn't. A person who sticks around when the party is over and tries to mooch is overstepping the invitation. A person who steps out of the party room and breaks into someone's safe is going even further.

Make that a person who only exists b/c the mother did certain things, and allowed certain processes to take place which led to it's existence and it's being dependent on the mother.
The person who sticks around or thieves as a result of a party is only in that situation because the host did something. This does not mean what the host did justifies what the person did.

If the host knew from the get-go that that "thieving" was a necessity for the continued existence of the guest, and is a direct result of a natural process which occurs due to the Nature(physical) of their guest, and natural processes due to the environment the host invited them to.
If the host made no promise to provide for such necessities, then no.

Not unless the host specified a time of stay :).
The Nature of that thing invited specifies that, as the host knew
Nature wasn't a party to the transaction. It has no standing.


Btw, in what sense do you mean " think and learn?" A rat learns. But you still kill it. Even if you did drop crumbs on the floor.

Well a rat is clearly not a person,
It learns. It has a semblance of awareness. It's not rational, but neither is a baby.

how is a babe of 8 months not?
Same way the rat isn't. Lack of rationality.

o.k. so babes of 9, 10, 11 months aren't people, and ought be able to be killed at will by those they're dependent upon
Probably. I'm open to the babe rebutting that presumption. In either case they definitely ought be able to be booted out of any home that they don't have a signed lease/deed to or demonstrable original acquisition of.


I don't necessarily have a definition of "person"
Any argument based on a certain status needs to have a definition of that status.
ok, A non-asserted, loose definition, of being a conscious human.
Human: Rational animal. Fetus does not qualify. Any other definition of human would be ad hoc speciesism, which is no better than racism.

2. they don't become intelligent when carried for a while
I wouldn't describe a newborn as intelligent-- or more precisely, rational. Let alone a fetus.

A fetus of 8.1/2 months might not "know" all too much, but is a learning machine on hyperdrive.
Hyperdrive? How can you demonstrate it learning any more than that cheeseburger you had did when it was younger?


I would assume; Rationality comes from being able to sort, and consider, that knowledge you do have. Naturally with extremely limited knowledge, and a lack of practice dealing with it, such a babe might not be able to make what we would think the "rational" choice based on our evidence and experience, but that would be b/c they have had a lack of evidence and practice, the rationality of the choice doesn't lie in the choice itself, but in the thinker who chooses it.
And how do you propose to demonstrate the thinking is oh-so-powerful if it isn't thinking about anything? What's a thought without content?

Note this would only get you a license to prevent, perhaps, partial birth abortion in the sense of killing the fetus after removal. Other abortions would remain intact :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2010 12:42:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/20/2010 1:21:19 AM, OreEle wrote:
A fetuses and embryos are 100% human DNA which, left in their natural habitat will become a human baby (unlike skin cells, so don't even bring them into it). I think we can all agree that they are human(though you're more then welcome to disagree, I'd love to see that, "fetuses aren't humans")
It's appeared over 9000 times in this thread. Am I to take it you're in love?

Potential=/= actual.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.