Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abortion

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 12:53:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've noticed that in many conversations and arguments regarding abortion, many pro-life people make the claim that a fetus is simply a potential human being. It is not a human being so does not have rights. However, they also cite sentience and sapience as the only sensible definition of what is a human being. Aren't both these qualities present in the unborn?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 12:59:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 12:54:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Aren't you con-abortion though?

Yes.

My point is that humans have rights because they are sentient/sapient, after a certain stage a fetus is definately sentient and arguably sapient, so should such fetuses have human right rights?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:02:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 12:59:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 12:54:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Aren't you con-abortion though?

Yes.

My point is that humans have rights because they are sentient/sapient, after a certain stage a fetus is definately sentient and arguably sapient, so should such fetuses have human right rights?

Ok. What's your reasoning for being con-abortion? I'm curious. I'm against abortion on the basis that too many people seem to be using it as a form of birth control and as a way to enable them to have casual sex. If you don't want a child use protection and/or birth control.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:09:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:02:01 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/19/2010 12:59:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 12:54:49 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Aren't you con-abortion though?

Yes.

My point is that humans have rights because they are sentient/sapient, after a certain stage a fetus is definately sentient and arguably sapient, so should such fetuses have human right rights?

Ok. What's your reasoning for being con-abortion? I'm curious. I'm against abortion on the basis that too many people seem to be using it as a form of birth control and as a way to enable them to have casual sex. If you don't want a child use protection and/or birth control.

I object to it on the basis that it is destroying potential and/or actual human life. The former is more palatable than the later so I'd accept early stage abortion.

Exceptions can be made for fetuses that are highly disabled, but even that is controversial. And in Rape cases, ideally the mother will carry the child to term but it should be their choice.

I object to it being used as birth control, and object to the fact that it has been mistakenly presented as an issue of 'womens rights' or even consumer choice.

I am not strong on the issue however, so I tend to avoid debating it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:13:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:09:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I object to it on the basis that it is destroying potential and/or actual human life. The former is more palatable than the later so I'd accept early stage abortion.

I generally like to tell myself that once brain activity begins it's a human.

Exceptions can be made for fetuses that are highly disabled, but even that is controversial. And in Rape cases, ideally the mother will carry the child to term but it should be their choice.

Yea, rape victims can get abortions. As for the disabled children, that would only be appropriate in certain circumstances such as the family being in extreme poverty and unable to provide all the extra care a disabled child would need.

I object to it being used as birth control, and object to the fact that it has been mistakenly presented as an issue of 'womens rights' or even consumer choice.

I have seen people call pro-lifers "sexist".
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:16:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Some people are born deaf and blind simultaneously. Just because they never claimed to have rights to live, or had many possibilities in life, does not mean that we should have the right to kill them.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:19:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:13:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:09:16 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I object to it on the basis that it is destroying potential and/or actual human life. The former is more palatable than the later so I'd accept early stage abortion.

I generally like to tell myself that once brain activity begins it's a human.

Yea pretty much, it is quite early on though.


Exceptions can be made for fetuses that are highly disabled, but even that is controversial. And in Rape cases, ideally the mother will carry the child to term but it should be their choice.

Yea, rape victims can get abortions. As for the disabled children, that would only be appropriate in certain circumstances such as the family being in extreme poverty and unable to provide all the extra care a disabled child would need.

I am thinking more the ones that are so disabled they are not viable, even with top level care.


I object to it being used as birth control, and object to the fact that it has been mistakenly presented as an issue of 'womens rights' or even consumer choice.

I have seen people call pro-lifers "sexist".

I think that is a dishonest, or at least intellectually flawed counter-argument. However, mind you many pro-lifers are fundementalist christians so they probably are sexist but not because of their stance on abortion. I just don't consider it a 'womens issue'. How can it be when the only important question is, 'do the unborn have rights'?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:20:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:19:25 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
As an ex-member of the Pro-Life camp, I must say that most arguments used to negate abortion based on morals or "personhood" are unsound.

In what way?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:22:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:19:32 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I am thinking more the ones that are so disabled they are not viable, even with top level care.

Yea, that too maybe. Why make the child suffer its entire life?

I think that is a dishonest, or at least intellectually flawed counter-argument. However, mind you many pro-lifers are fundementalist christians so they probably are sexist but not because of their stance on abortion. I just don't consider it a 'womens issue'. How can it be when the only important question is, 'do the unborn have rights'?

That makes me think of the people who take the "You're a man so you can't have an opinion on abortion!" stance. Or people who say virgins can't: http://www.debate.org... It's just silly.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:25:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Regarding disabled children, it depends on the situation. If it is one that will suffer much pain, and the parents fear a lot for how they will deal with it, maybe in order to actually save their own lives by not bringing too much pain and sorrow upon them, then an abortion of the fetus can be morally acceptable.

But I admire people who do not abort deformed fetuses, and want to let them live.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:36:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:25:56 PM, Mirza wrote:

But I admire people who do not abort deformed fetuses, and want to let them live.

Yep, it's not an easy decision to make.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:39:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:36:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Yep, it's not an easy decision to make.
Indeed not. I also think that people should look at adoption instead of abortion. If they can find a family or something similar that wants to take care of a deformed child, then a woman can give birth and adopt the child. It can be heartbreaking to let your own child go to someone else, and feel bad about not being the one to take care about it, but the lesser of two evils is better.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:42:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:39:52 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:36:35 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Yep, it's not an easy decision to make.
Indeed not. I also think that people should look at adoption instead of abortion. If they can find a family or something similar that wants to take care of a deformed child, then a woman can give birth and adopt the child. It can be heartbreaking to let your own child go to someone else, and feel bad about not being the one to take care about it, but the lesser of two evils is better.

Actually I would rather adopt children than have my own. Why bring more children into the world when you could help out suffering children instead?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:44:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:42:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Actually I would rather adopt children than have my own. Why bring more children into the world when you could help out suffering children instead?
Save them for sterile couples, do both things, and so forth. It is a good thing to take care of a child, but I want my own, and if necessary, I will adopt another one to save his life somehow.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:48:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?

I feel like people killing babies harms my well being.

You try to kill a baby... I'll kill you.

It's really not a matter of whether the babe offers me anything.
"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."
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:49:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?
Read my posts in this thread. Particularly the first.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:50:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?

Are you willing to carry that to its logical conclusion?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:53:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The goal is to not kill sentient beings that have the ability to think and feel. Killing a fetus is wrong no matter how you put it. However, aborting the petri dish of chemicals does not constitute as killing.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 1:56:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:53:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
However, aborting the petri dish of chemicals does not constitute as killing.

I'm refering to the first trimester btw.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 2:04:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The question of whether fetuses in later trimesters have sapience or sentience isn't one that can really be decided. I don't think there are any studies out there which state anything conclusively either way. Given that fact, you can't really restrict abortions on the ground that in the third trimester, there is a chance that the fetus might be aware. It's leaving the power to take away the right of choice on the basis of fuzzy possibility. The fact is, it still ends up being the mother's choice as to what to do with her body, and that includes things within it.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 2:06:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 1:50:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?

Are you willing to carry that to its logical conclusion?

And what are you implying that is?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 2:14:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 2:06:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:50:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?

Are you willing to carry that to its logical conclusion?

And what are you implying that is?

The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that young children and the unemployed have no right to life.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 2:18:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
and the severely disabled... and random outcast types..
"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."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 2:19:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 2:14:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:06:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:50:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?

Are you willing to carry that to its logical conclusion?

And what are you implying that is?

The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that young children and the unemployed have no right to life.

They certainly have more potential than an un-born.

All I'm saying is that there's nothing that sets it in stone. It's all a matter of reasoning the consequences. Would it be beneficial to society to not allow small children a right to life? Of course not. Would it be beneficial to allow abortions? Probably.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 2:34:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 2:19:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:14:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:06:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:50:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?

Are you willing to carry that to its logical conclusion?

And what are you implying that is?

The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that young children and the unemployed have no right to life.

They certainly have more potential than an un-born.

All I'm saying is that there's nothing that sets it in stone. It's all a matter of reasoning the consequences. Would it be beneficial to society to not allow small children a right to life? Of course not. Would it be beneficial to allow abortions? Probably.

what's your idea of 'benefit' and why is it important to pursue it.

As I already said I feel that you killing babes harms my well being.
"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."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 2:54:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 2:34:31 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:19:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:14:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:06:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:50:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?

Are you willing to carry that to its logical conclusion?

And what are you implying that is?

The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that young children and the unemployed have no right to life.

They certainly have more potential than an un-born.

All I'm saying is that there's nothing that sets it in stone. It's all a matter of reasoning the consequences. Would it be beneficial to society to not allow small children a right to life? Of course not. Would it be beneficial to allow abortions? Probably.

what's your idea of 'benefit' and why is it important to pursue it.

Whatever causes the most pleasure is what is preferable. A right to life generally causes a more pleasurable living environment for society.

As I already said I feel that you killing babes harms my well being.

It's perfectly reasonable to be pro-life if you think it would benefit society. But could you please explain why?

Again, I don't base my view on silly principles or such. It's purely off of the consequences. So if you can show me that disallowing abortion would be beneficial to society, I will surely change my mind on the issue.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2010 2:59:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/19/2010 2:54:42 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:34:31 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:19:47 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:14:51 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 2:06:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:50:15 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 5/19/2010 1:44:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Rights to life do not inherently exist in nature.

Rights are created by society to advance our general well-being in some way.

If un-born infants don't have anything to initially offer society, why should they have a right to life?

Are you willing to carry that to its logical conclusion?

And what are you implying that is?

The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that young children and the unemployed have no right to life.

They certainly have more potential than an un-born.

All I'm saying is that there's nothing that sets it in stone. It's all a matter of reasoning the consequences. Would it be beneficial to society to not allow small children a right to life? Of course not. Would it be beneficial to allow abortions? Probably.

what's your idea of 'benefit' and why is it important to pursue it.

Whatever causes the most pleasure is what is preferable. A right to life generally causes a more pleasurable living environment for society.

As I already said I feel that you killing babes harms my well being.

It's perfectly reasonable to be pro-life if you think it would benefit society. But could you please explain why?

I find your plotting to kill babies unpleasant....

like the opposite of pleasure... so I would want to prevent such things...

Again, I don't base my view on silly principles or such. It's purely off of the consequences. So if you can show me that disallowing abortion would be beneficial to society, I will surely change my mind on the issue.
"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."