| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ShovZ
United Kingdom56 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:36 Alzadar wrote: Why is that a problem? It is the logical conclusion I reached. Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder. | ||
|
Thrill
2599 Posts
Politicians and the public should never get a vote on this, it should be an individual medical decision made for each case by the women based on advice from her physician. Edit: most funny of all are of course the anti abortion freaks who are for the death penalty. That's a lovely juxtaposition eh? | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:41 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: The law, the dictionary and the consensus of most people disagrees with you. Something isn't what you want it to be only because you want it to be so to satisfy your personal opinions The definition of murder is ending a life.  | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On April 29 2011 02:44 Alzadar wrote: But back to my inductive proof: Let us assume it is wrong to kill a baby after it is born. Killing a baby the day before birth is also wrong (it is fully capable of living on its own at that point, you could induce a pregnancy and it would live). If it is wrong to kill something today, it was wrong to kill them yesterday (the idea that a few hours make a difference on whether it is ok to kill or not is ridiculous). Thus by the inductive hypothesis and the principle of mathematical induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. ehhh... as a mathematician, I think you're a little off in your understanding of induction. Props for even bringing it up though. You're trying to say: Assume it is wrong to stop a pregnancy at time t=0 (which you've labeled as birth) If it is wrong at time t=k, an arbitrary point in time, then this implies it is also wrong at t=k-1 Then it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy at any t < 0. That's the thing about induction, it goes in that direction infinitely  So abortion, contraception, tampering with those molecules 1000 years before the pregnancy, are all wrong if we accept your t=k -> t=k-1 premise (ie the inductive step). This is why it's rare to use induction going backwards in time for real world problems. It literally takes you back to the beginning of time. On the other hand, using induction going forward gives more sensible results. From this, you could easily show that the wrongness of killing a baby at birth implies that it is wrong to kill the same being in 10 years. But you have to define the starting point. Which you think is conception, others think is birth, others in between, and a few really do define conception as murder. But just as your belief that abortion at conception is murder does not imply that contraceptive use is murder, a belief that killing at/after birth is murder does not imply that abortion is murder. | ||
|
Kaonis
United States243 Posts
Allow abortions. Fine or imprison mothers who do so for violating the contract for consensual sex. I got nothing for rape or incest, I'm not touching that one. | ||
|
Kinetik_Inferno
United States1431 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:43 ShovZ wrote: Going on semantics, 'murder', in the legal sense, is the unlawful killing of another human being. In the eyes of the law, an unborn fetus has no legal rights, and is not considered a human being, and therefore it is argued that abortion does not equal murder. But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:41 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: Thats because it is, it's ending a life that could have been very prosperous and excellent, depending on the situation. I don't care if you don't consider it a person. The definition of murder is ending a life. Killing a 30 year old guy prevents him from becoming 40. Killing a fetus prevents it from having a chance, or a choice. No the definition of murder is killing another human being. I don't agree that a lump of cells is a human being yet. Therefore you analogy is faulty. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:50 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine. So in an apocalyptic world it's fine to kill people. Got ya. | ||
|
Canadium
Canada171 Posts
It also doesn't effect me if someone I don't know robs someone else I don't know, but I still believe that should be illegal. If two people have a child together, raise it in complete secrecy to age 15 and then kill it, is it murder? The rest of society isn't affected at all, they didn't even know the child existed. And I agree with you about the decision to possibly create a life being made by two people. And after that decision is made, both people will have to live with the consequences and do what they can for the child they've created (assuming they do). You're missing the crucial point, which is that if killing a fetus at time T is wrong, killing it at time T-1 is also wrong, because time should have no effect on personhood and the right to life. It is completely inane to say "today it is ok to kill, but if we wait until tomorrow it will be not ok". [/QUOTE] The most sound argument in this thread. GG Alzadar.... You just hard countered everything. | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:54 nam nam wrote: So in an apocalyptic world it's fine to kill people. Got ya. Babies born on rainy days are 10% more likely to be depressed in their lives, I say it's okay to kill it if it's raining out on the day of expected delivery. also, unrelated, 54.5% of statistics are made up on the spot. | ||
|
ShovZ
United Kingdom56 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:50 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: But it will be one. You're saying that it's not to dodge the question. Fact: Killing a fetus ends it's chance for life, a life that may be spectacular and successful. Fact: A human fetus will become a human being. By killing a fetus, you are killing what will become a person. If the fetus is diseased and doesn't deserve to have that shitty life it will get, then fine. If the woman is diseased and it will be passed on to the baby, also fine. If it's either the woman or the child, then your choice. If the child will grow up terribly because of the state the world is in (think apocolyptic) then fine. Yes, I understand your point of view, I am merely expressing the position of the law. (And also defining the appropriate terms of the discussion). Your point of 'life that may be spectacular and successful' is not that relevant as there is also a chance that the fetus will be stillborn, have defects, be run over etc etc. It is also not a FACT but more of a probability...or it should qualified by 'all things considered' but I'm just nitpicking now (...you need not respond to any of this...)Killing the fetus may end its chance for life, however, that does not mean killing the fetus is murder. If I kill what will become a humam being, I am not killing THE human being. Just in the same way that if someone is committed of murder, they are not committed of the murder of all the people that the victim may have spawned or the lives of people that the victim may have potentially saved. Furthermore, if one only considered the fetus to be a group of cells equivalent in property as one's hair, then in this vein, it would also not be murder. EDIT: my above analogy is a bit...meh. If I steal some clay, I am not stealing the vase that the clay may become. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
I don't have any moral qualms about that natural phenomenon and there is no moral imperative to replant the fetus into the uterus. If doctors and the mother wants to simulate that, it's a technicality and should not be illegal. They will have to live with the morality of their own decision and the consequences of their actions. Taking a knife to fetal tissue or any type of invasive action against fetus is extremely reprehensible. I wouldn't want any part of that and probably won't want to have anything to do with anyone that was part of it. The only weapon and threat the man rightly has against a woman aborting his baby over his objections is kicking the girl out of his life and never having anything to do with her again. If there is no civil way to reach an agreement, it probably wasn't going to be a good match. On the other hand, when the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the man is forced to pay child support and go along with the decision. For equality, treatment of the situation should be a bit more symmetrical. | ||
|
AyeH
United States534 Posts
| ||
|
AyeH
United States534 Posts
On April 29 2011 04:07 ShovZ wrote: Yes, I understand your point of view, I am merely expressing the position of the law. (And also defining the appropriate terms of the discussion). Your point of 'life that may be spectacular and successful' is not that relevant as there is also a chance that the fetus will be stillborn, have defects, be run over etc etc. It is also not a FACT but more of a probability...or it should qualified by 'all things considered' but I'm just nitpicking now (...you need not respond to any of this...)Killing the fetus may end its chance for life, however, that does not mean killing the fetus is murder. If I kill what will become a humam being, I am not killing THE human being. Just in the same way that if someone is committed of murder, they are not committed of the murder of all the people that the victim may have spawned or the lives of people that the victim may have potentially saved. Furthermore, if one only considered the fetus to be a group of cells equivalent in property as one's hair, then in this vein, it would also not be murder. EDIT: my above analogy is a bit...meh. If I steal some clay, I am not stealing the vase that the clay may become. well according to the transitive property i learned in geometry. if a=b and b=c , then a=c. therefore, if clay=vase clay =stolen then vase is stolen. lol | ||
|
ShovZ
United Kingdom56 Posts
On April 29 2011 04:17 AyeH wrote: well according to the transitive property i learned in geometry. if a=b and b=c , then a=c. therefore, if clay=vase clay =stolen then vase is stolen. lol haha, but the element of time does not mean that clay=vase... | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On April 29 2011 03:21 Alzadar wrote: It also doesn't effect me if someone I don't know robs someone else I don't know, but I still believe that should be illegal. If two people have a child together, raise it in complete secrecy to age 15 and then kill it, is it murder? The rest of society isn't affected at all, they didn't even know the child existed. And I agree with you about the decision to possibly create a life being made by two people. And after that decision is made, both people will have to live with the consequences and do what they can for the child they've created (assuming they do). You're missing the crucial point, which is that if killing a fetus at time T is wrong, killing it at time T-1 is also wrong, because time should have no effect on personhood and the right to life. It is completely inane to say "today it is ok to kill, but if we wait until tomorrow it will be not ok". You're just making the same point over and over and over. Abortion is not the same thing as murder. There is no such thing as a 'right to life', which is essentially another way of saying 'sanctity of life'. The fact that you (and a considerable portion of people around the world) feel that this right should excist doesn't change anything. The concept of individual rights only gets extended to, you know, an actual individual. At the time of an abortion, there is no individual yet, in the most extreme case there's a clump of 2-4 cells that might one day develop into an individual. To rebutt your examples: 1) Robbery - Society as a whole endorses the concept of property, and property is crucial to our current social system, so government has a right to enforce it. In a society with no concept of property, robbery wouldn't be a crime. 2) Murdering your basement dwelling son - Society extends individual rights to every individual. No matter if you hide him in your basement. Again, the concept of individual rights (and responsibilities) is crucial to the functioning of our society and therefore needs to be enforced by the government. You can't make a similar case for abortion, and especially on an issue this divisive, government should stay the hell away from it. Be happy you're allowed to live your life according to your own morality, and allow me to do the same. (Oh and I take it morning after pills are murder too?) | ||
|
Sleight
2471 Posts
On April 29 2011 01:35 yema1 wrote: I'm glad to see that they're cracking down on late-term abortions. Description of a 18-22 week fetus: "She may have some head hair and eyebrows by now. She can make facial expressions, frowning and grimacing expressively. Her ears are well developed and she can hear your voice and your heartbeat." I'm an avid supporter of abortions but when the baby has reached a certain point of maturity you aren't killing a fetus. You're killing a baby. No one has the right to kill a baby, regardless of whether it's in you or not. This isn't true. I posted a very detailed explanation of what a fetus is capable of. They CANNOTmake actual facial expressions, cannot heart properly, does not have any clear hair growth, but does have a heartbeat, which they are unable regulate to any real degree. Any "facial expressions" are incidental and not responses. Their nervous system IS NOT developed and cannot possibly convey meaningful information because their BRAIN is not not developed to any useful degree. Higher brain development happens towards 22 and up, not by 20 weeks. EDIT: For reference, a baby at BIRTH does not have ears capable of distinguishing sounds well. | ||
|
gimpy
United States72 Posts
20 Weeks: ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3_d9tnI7TJw/TWlAazrDuHI/AAAAAAAAAQE/zLx2EZsIprc/s1600/nilsson_rm_photo_of_20_week_fetus.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0l6wzhDBq5A/TSuQVZrPwPI/AAAAAAAAAA4/5OixTWG6JdM/s1600/fetus20+weeks.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://pregnancy-and-baby-tips.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/baby-20weeks.jpg) | ||
|
ShovZ
United Kingdom56 Posts
On April 29 2011 04:35 gimpy wrote: I'm sorry for these graphic images, but this is an adult topic and it shouldn't be treated lightly. Sometimes waxing philosophical clouds what should be obvious. These are children and we must protect them. How can you tell these babies that they are better off if we dispose of them before they have a chance? Any one of us could have been terminated. 20 Weeks: Yes, these are very emotive images...but one must also remember that at 20 weeks, the fetus is only around 15cm long... Also, is it not up to human beings, to use their rationality and question our own moral intuition? To reject a theory/action on the basis of a reaction to it is not a good way of going about things, then we wouldn't really progress much as a race...things like vaccinations, blood transfusion etc would all have stopped in their tracks because of an initial 'YUK' factor. | ||
|
mister.bubbles
Canada171 Posts
Babies born on rainy days are 10% more likely to be depressed in their lives, I say it's okay to kill it if it's raining out on the day of expected delivery. also, unrelated, 54.5% of statistics are made up on the spot. Oh man, for a second I was like "54.4% huh, that's really interesting." Then I laughed at myself for my hubris. On a more related note; I am against any ban of abortion under any condition because I can't think of anything more cruel to a child then bringing it into the world when no one wants it to exist or the parents don't feel they are in a situation to raise it right. On the other side I think it is even too cruel to the parent to bring them into that situation. I always feel that people are too prone to drawing black and white situations out of life and death. There are very many situations where death is preferable to life and I think there are even more times when it would be preferable to have never been born. Dying is a natural and beautiful thing that everyone does, we shouldn't look at it as some unspeakable evil. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
The PondCast
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
|
|
|
EPT
