|
On June 30 2013 00:19 Acrofales wrote:
Hmmm, why do you arbitrarily draw the line at zygote?
What is it that makes a zygote "human", and a gamete, just an ordinary cell?
If you claim that one has the potential to grow into a human and the other doesn't, that is just one extra step in a looooooong list of steps that a zygote already needs.
Also, zygotes fail to settle into the uterus all the time, thereby "aborting" human life. Shouldn't we be doing something against this woeful killing of millions (yes) of humans a year? It's due to natural causes, but that doesn't make it any less terrible if you consider zygotes as humans.
I don't feel like explaining the difference between a gamete and an actual member of a species. Read a biology textbook, seriously...
As for preventing natural miscarriages, there's nothing that can really be done about that beyond accepting the fact that it's how nature works. There's a difference between this and potentially legalizing murder.
|
On June 30 2013 00:26 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:06 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:49 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons. You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing? I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact. Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way. edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons? Why would I? A fully developed mentally-hadicapped person is different from a human mass that has yet to achieve sentience.
What makes putting to death equally capable animals morally okay but doing the same with human being not okay?
|
On June 30 2013 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:19 Acrofales wrote:
Hmmm, why do you arbitrarily draw the line at zygote?
What is it that makes a zygote "human", and a gamete, just an ordinary cell?
If you claim that one has the potential to grow into a human and the other doesn't, that is just one extra step in a looooooong list of steps that a zygote already needs.
Also, zygotes fail to settle into the uterus all the time, thereby "aborting" human life. Shouldn't we be doing something against this woeful killing of millions (yes) of humans a year? It's due to natural causes, but that doesn't make it any less terrible if you consider zygotes as humans. I don't feel like explaining the difference between a gamete and an actual member of a species. Read a biology textbook, seriously... As for preventing natural miscarriages, there's nothing that can really be done about that beyond accepting the fact that it's how nature works. There's a difference between this and potentially legalizing murder.
Actually I think you do need to explain the difference, because I'm not sure if you know the difference.
|
On June 30 2013 00:31 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:On June 30 2013 00:19 Acrofales wrote:
Hmmm, why do you arbitrarily draw the line at zygote?
What is it that makes a zygote "human", and a gamete, just an ordinary cell?
If you claim that one has the potential to grow into a human and the other doesn't, that is just one extra step in a looooooong list of steps that a zygote already needs.
Also, zygotes fail to settle into the uterus all the time, thereby "aborting" human life. Shouldn't we be doing something against this woeful killing of millions (yes) of humans a year? It's due to natural causes, but that doesn't make it any less terrible if you consider zygotes as humans. I don't feel like explaining the difference between a gamete and an actual member of a species. Read a biology textbook, seriously... As for preventing natural miscarriages, there's nothing that can really be done about that beyond accepting the fact that it's how nature works. There's a difference between this and potentially legalizing murder. Actually I think you do need to explain the difference, because I'm not sure if you know the difference.
Well, I couldn't care less if you think I know the difference. You've been insulting me all along so why should I grant your wish.
|
On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind.
If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL.
If you want to play that way, go ahead.
|
On June 30 2013 00:30 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:26 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 30 2013 00:06 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:49 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons. You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing? I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact. Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way. edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons? Why would I? A fully developed mentally-hadicapped person is different from a human mass that has yet to achieve sentience. What makes putting to death equally capable animals morally okay but doing the same with human being not okay?
What makes removing life support on people that's been in accidents and determined brain dead okay?
|
On June 30 2013 00:34 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:30 maybenexttime wrote:On June 30 2013 00:26 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 30 2013 00:06 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:49 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:
[quote]
Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons. You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing? I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact. Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way. edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons? Why would I? A fully developed mentally-hadicapped person is different from a human mass that has yet to achieve sentience. What makes putting to death equally capable animals morally okay but doing the same with human being not okay? What makes removing life support on people that's been in accidents and determined brain dead okay?
We already do it if the person in question asks us to. It's called DNR.
|
On June 30 2013 00:26 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:19 Acrofales wrote:
Hmmm, why do you arbitrarily draw the line at zygote?
What is it that makes a zygote "human", and a gamete, just an ordinary cell?
If you claim that one has the potential to grow into a human and the other doesn't, that is just one extra step in a looooooong list of steps that a zygote already needs.
Also, zygotes fail to settle into the uterus all the time, thereby "aborting" human life. Shouldn't we be doing something against this woeful killing of millions (yes) of humans a year? It's due to natural causes, but that doesn't make it any less terrible if you consider zygotes as humans. I don't feel like explaining the difference between a gamete and an actual member of a species. Read a biology textbook, seriously... As for preventing natural miscarriages, there's nothing that can really be done about that beyond accepting the fact that it's how nature works. There's a difference between this and potentially legalizing murder.
I don't feel like explaining the difference between a zygote and an actual member of a species. Read a biology textbook, seriously...
Also, what is it that makes nature magically good and the way things work, but technology evil and to be stopped?
Should we just accept hurricanes as a fact of life and do nothing to prevent them, because... nature?
|
On June 30 2013 00:30 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:26 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 30 2013 00:06 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:49 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:On June 29 2013 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 22:49 zbedlam wrote:
I generally don't pay attention to feminists so that isn't too surprising.
What you call it is irrelevant to me, I assume you are talking about the morning after pill which again, is not something women are eager to do, it is still unpleasant for them. I didn't think the morning after pill was part of the scope in the thread although it technically still is abortion.
Regardless, point still stands - sane women avoid abortion of all forms unless they have made a mistake. Yes I'm sure there is the occasional crackhead that uses the morning after pill in place of other forms of contraception but they are a minority.
edit: If you think raising a kid you don't want is a trivial matter you should not be posting here. If you think it's just harsh on the mother think again, you think the kid is going to be unaffected by being raised in a family where he/she is a liability and/or unwanted? Or you might give him/her up for adoption instead of killing the kid... Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons. You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing? I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact. Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way. edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons? Why would I? A fully developed mentally-hadicapped person is different from a human mass that has yet to achieve sentience. What makes putting to death equally capable animals morally okay but doing the same with human being not okay?
Because I think it is reasonable to draw the line between a person and a biological mass at when sentience is achieved. I'm sure you already knew that, though.
|
On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead.
??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ???
I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it.
Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society.
|
On June 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:34 nihlon wrote:On June 30 2013 00:30 maybenexttime wrote:On June 30 2013 00:26 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 30 2013 00:06 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:49 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons. You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing? I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact. Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way. edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons? Why would I? A fully developed mentally-hadicapped person is different from a human mass that has yet to achieve sentience. What makes putting to death equally capable animals morally okay but doing the same with human being not okay? What makes removing life support on people that's been in accidents and determined brain dead okay? We already do it if the person in question asks us to. It's called DNR.
I know that we do. I want to know if he considers that murder too.
And just to be clear du to DoubleReed's point below, I'm taking about people that have been stabilized on life support but pronounced brain dead or permanent vegetable state (or whatever it's called). I don't know how the laws is in all countries but they are usually not kept alive indefinitely even if it's technically possible for a long time, consent or not from the actual person.
|
On June 30 2013 00:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:34 nihlon wrote:On June 30 2013 00:30 maybenexttime wrote:On June 30 2013 00:26 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 30 2013 00:06 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:49 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:37 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:32 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Seriously? Comparing abortion to the Holocaust? All because you disagree on what metric to use when defining what is a "person"? You're just trolling now. On June 29 2013 23:33 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2013 23:18 maybenexttime wrote:On June 29 2013 23:10 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Good thing nobody's "killing the kid", because zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not kids. In that case slavery was not a horrible transgression of human rights or morality because black people were not human beings either, right? Was the Holocaust not horrific either, because Jews were not humans according to Germans? Yea! The Holocaust! That's clearly far less ridiculous a reason than the things I've brought up. That's why you should be the one to determine if a reason is substantial enough for an abortion, not the woman herself! My sarcasm muscles are straining here dude. You're giving me quite a workout. But seriously, read the article I linked. I think it might open your eyes a bit. I really don't see how depriving a human being of basic human rights and dehumanizing him/her based on age (or stage of development) is that much different than doing so based on the skin colour, ethnicity or class. As far as I'm concerned, basic human rights should be granted to any human being, regardless of anything. Otherwise we'll get into the shady area of depriving human beings of them for arbitrary reasons. You equate personhood with conception and think those who dissagree with you are akin to Hitler. What's even the point of discussing? I don't equate personhood with conception. I don't equate being a human being with personhood. The two have a lot in common, but the former is a broader term. A new human being, or a member of homo sapiens species comes into existence at conception. That's a biological fact. Whether you think that killing or depriving of human rights based on age instead of ethnicity, skin colour or class is not as bad, is not my problem. Believe it or not, there were millions of people who did not consider one of the latter as nothing bad. They also rationalized their views in a similar way. edit: If it's not age that is the demarcation line, but rather the complexity of the neural cortex or brain capabilities, then would you agree that it should be possible to legally put to death mentally challenged people or those who suffered from certain types of brain damage, rendering them as mentally capable as some animals we do put to death for various reasons? Why would I? A fully developed mentally-hadicapped person is different from a human mass that has yet to achieve sentience. What makes putting to death equally capable animals morally okay but doing the same with human being not okay? What makes removing life support on people that's been in accidents and determined brain dead okay? We already do it if the person in question asks us to. It's called DNR.
I was under the impression that DNR is "Do Not Resuscitate," as in: "if something life-threatening occurs, do not help me." It doesn't have anything to do with life support. That's euthanasia or assisted suicide.
One is doing nothing, the other is actively doing something. Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society.
So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general...
|
On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general...
???? Whaaaaat????? I don't think abortion is killing another person. I don't think there should be trials for abortion???
Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? Because I have no idea what your position is at this point.
|
On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials?
I WASNT refering to abortions i was refering for murder like killing someone that is 20years or anything else that is already born, since you cant have trials. You said basically a law cant be made because you have to do investigations (like i brought up with accident or natural death) and therefore trials. If your grandfather dies there most likely wont be a trial.
That doesnt mean it is ok to kill people because if your grandfather dies there MIGHT be a trial. You got that?
You are saying a law cant be made because then there could be trials suspecting someone for doing something that is illegal.
OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here:
Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons?
|
On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons?
Of course not. 1 day before birth is viable. An obviously non-pragmatic example, though, unlike miscarriage trials.
Answer the question, dude. If you think there should be miscarriage trials then you fully agree with me. Many people have not considered the idea of scrutinizing miscarriages when they are pro-life. That is what I was trying to demonstrate. If you have no problem with scrutinizing miscarriages, then just fucking say so. But don't pretend that you don't have an extreme position.
|
On June 30 2013 01:03 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons? Of course not. 1 day before birth is viable. Answer the question, dude. If you think there should be miscarriage trials then you fully agree with me. Many people have not considered the idea of scrutinizing miscarriages when they are pro-life. That is what I was trying to demonstrate. If you have no problem with scrutinizing miscarriages, then fine.
SO why not? Because if make this illegal then there would be TRIALS dude.
And then again misscarriages happen all the time, and most likely there shouldnt be a trial if there is not real way of having blantant evidence that someone had an abortion. Then the law would just make sure you cannot go to a doctor and have an abortion since the doctor will risk his license.
And i m not fucking pro life.
|
On June 30 2013 01:01 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 00:54 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:47 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:41 DoubleReed wrote:On June 30 2013 00:34 Sokrates wrote:On June 30 2013 00:23 DoubleReed wrote:
No i didnt say that, i said that if you argue this way nobody is able to punish anybody for murder etc. since you are not to allowed to investigate murder and such since there are people dying by accidents/natural death.
Saying that you cannot have laws on abortion because then you also have to scrutinize abortion and therefore making wrong judgements in the court also says that nobody can be punished for murder since you always have the possibilty that somebody is innocent. And since deaths of a person (murder or not) are scrutinized, this isnt an argument against punishing capital crimes (like murder or manslaughter etc.).
It is basically saying "since there are innocent people in prison therefore nobody should be in prison at all."
Got that? I always wonder why it is so hard to understand implications and everybody has to underline them so people get the idea.
Right. So you're in favor of miscarriage trials. Before you were trying to claim that you can be against abortion without being against miscarriage trials. I'm glad you've changed your mind. If i m in favor of miscarriage trials you are in favor of nobody being sent to prison no matter what they did. Since i m pro trials you are against them in GENERAL. If you want to play that way, go ahead. ??? But I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion should be illegal. ??? I was saying that miscarriage trials are a real consequence of being against abortion. Do you think this or not? Because it sounds to me like you want abortion to be illegal, but don't actually want to enforce it. Again, this makes me think that you acknowledge the immorality of your viewpoint and don't actually want to live in that society. So then you should also think that killing another person should be legal. So i can kill somebody and then there cant be a trial. Since you are against all trials in general... ???? Whaaaaat????? Just answer the fucking question: Do you think miscarriage trials are a real consequence of making abortion illegal? Do you think that you can make abortion illegal without having miscarriage trials? OK now answer my question first and then i m going to answer yours since we save time here: Should it be legal for you for having an abortion 1 day before birth without giving any reasons?
there is no morally correct place to draw that line, which is why abortion should be heavily discouraged or penalized somehow until we live in a society that is educated enough to know when to have children. Outside cases of rape and incest, a potential human being should not be aborted due to the irresponsibility of the parents.
|
On June 29 2013 22:38 maybenexttime wrote:
@Reason
That's like saying people who support death penalty are "pro-murder". One may disagree with death penalty (like I do), but claiming the former would be absurd. So is calling people like me "pro-choice".
If you don't understand why saying:
"I'm pro-life with X exceptions" is just as incorrect as saying "I'm a non-racist with X exceptions" then there's not much more I can do here, I'm not an English teacher.
Your death penalty example doesn't work for a number of reasons, the simplest being what murder actually means:
Murder
Noun
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
|
If you make all abortions illegal then as a consequence miscarriage's would have to be investigated as suspicious deaths if you actually want to enforce the law. If you don't want to enforce the law then it would just work to shut down legal and safe abortion clinics and replace them with underground ones that works outside of the law, safety checks and such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
