In another forum I post in this logical progression has been dubbed "fuckem's razor." Basically you're going straight to "bitch had it coming" without giving a single thought to how the situation compares to anything else. I'm fairly certain that more people are involved in car accidents than get pregnant due to failed protection. The risk of driving is greater than the risk of pregnancy while having protected sex. Does this mean that everyone who gets in a car accident is at fault because they knew the risk? Unless they're directly at fault for the accident, no. Same with food poisoning from eating at a restaurant, same with walking downtown at night, same with traveling by airplane, same with any number of activities that aren't necessary for survival but that we do anyway.
I'm not saying people are absolved of any responsibility; they aren't. Especially if they don't bother with protection at all. That being the case, culpability isn't a huge issue. I've been talking about the issue because the general "they had it coming" attitude I've seen is both callous and stupid. Seriously what are you people republicans?
The default lifer position is that life begins at conception. These are fertilized eggs we're talking about; according to the horrifying protesters in the youtube videos I've been posting they have a "right to life". And yet we let most of them get literally flushed away without a thought. There is an undeniable contradiction here.
It's not their stated position, it's the logical continuation of their stated position. Their position is that denying a potential child the "right" to be born is equivalent to murder. Thus, if potential is pushed back to before the entirely arbitrary and nonsensical point of conception, we arrive at the statement above.
i mean, it is not possible for a female to reproduce asexually and the egg is only half the genetic make up for a zygote. therefore it cannot be produced into a child, nor does it have to potential to produce a child without the contribution of sperm and the other 50% of its dna.
and like you stated, they are saying that the potential exists when the zygote is created. meaning that the two contributions of genetic material have come together to create the new "potential". an egg on its own possess no potential to become a living being without being first fertilized by a sperm.
your "logical continuation" of the pro-life stated position seems like a logical fallacy. because it is not possible for every egg to become fertilized as sometimes fertilization is not always a result of sexual encounter.
It's not their stated position, it's the logical continuation of their stated position. Their position is that denying a potential child the "right" to be born is equivalent to murder. Thus, if potential is pushed back to before the entirely arbitrary and nonsensical point of conception, we arrive at the statement above.
I think your logical continuation goes too far. If I understand correctly, they're saying categorically that neither sperm nor eggs are human, but a zygote is. From this, they claim that abortion is wrong because it intentionally kills a human.
To attack this point, you can either accept that the zygote is human, but argue that it's still morally permissible to kill it, as randomuser does.
To attack this point, you can either accept that the zygote is human, but argue that it's still morally permissible to kill it, as randomuser does.
Or you could argue that a zygote is not human.
No, I'm saying that it's bullshit by demonstrating that their choice of zygote for the beginning of life is born of a childish understanding of how the world works.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that if abortion is killing a child, keeping sperm and eggs from one another is like cutting a child in half. Makes just as much sense.
No, I'm saying that it's bullshit by demonstrating that their choice of zygote for the beginning of life is born of a childish understanding of how the world works.
So you're saying you believe wasting sperm/menstruating is equivalent to killing by abortion?
Are you just trying to start arguments or did you not read the priot statements?
No, not at all. I'm just trying to fish out his position on this.
Basically the last arguments revolve around the question of when the potential for life begins. (although you're probably gonna jump me because for you it's not a question of when)
Ferrous pushed it back to way before the formation of the zygote (sperm and egg still separated). So I'm asking whether or not he still believes so even after the others have already made a proposition that, if anything, the potential technically begins when we have the zygote, because a sperm or an egg alone won't do the job. There's no "potential" child with just the sperm or just the egg alone.
This could also mean contraceptives do not kill "potential" babies because they're stopping it before there's even any potential. i'm just goin circles now.
A zygote outside of the mother won't "do the job". That's why there's an issue here in the first place.
I feel like I'm tilting at windmills here though since it seems like no one is actually advocating the at-conception position. I just wanted to make it clear that it's totally untenable and not based on anything resembling genuine evidence. As for my own position, I think you should be allowed to abort them until they learn to talk.
No, not at all. I'm just trying to fish out his position on this.
Basically the last arguments revolve around the question of when the potential for life begins. (although you're probably gonna jump me because for you it's not a question of when)
Ferrous pushed it back to way before the formation of the zygote (sperm and egg still separated). So I'm asking whether or not he still believes so even after the others have already made a proposition that, if anything, the potential technically begins when we have the zygote, because a sperm or an egg alone won't do the job. There's no "potential" child with just the sperm or just the egg alone.
This could also mean contraceptives do not kill "potential" babies because they're stopping it before there's even any potential. i'm just goin circles now.
The larger metaphorical comparison was that the cells are alive (sperm and egg), and pro-lifers argue that you're killing a life. So why not extend it to that point as well? I think I brought up this argument in the first place in the thread which is why I just want to finish it.
At which point the argument of sentience comes up, at which point the pro-lifers also have to distinguish why humans are morally better than any other creatures or living things on this planet that we trample over and murder everyday.
The argument is subjective and cannot come to a resolution, unlike my argument which uses objective claims.
I was trying to show in that example of how far you can push back the concept of "life", and then was waiting for someone to throw in the sentience argumen, to show how "species" eccentric the sentience argument is.
I figured at that point everyone would just agree to disagree on their stances, and pick up on or debate my point of choice, but I guess not.
I guess I wasn't very careful with my choice of words. I meant the zygote which has the potential.
The larger metaphorical comparison was that the cells are alive (sperm and egg), and pro-lifers argue that you're killing a life.
I don't know much about it, but I know that other cells in our body are "alive" as well. And taking into light the recent science that claims any cell in our body can be used to clone, the metaphor could basically be extended even further back to saying donating your blood is killing millions of potential babies.
So why not extend it to that point as well?
I am aware of the question and I understand the reason why we could extend it further back. But why not? Because, if left to themselves, a sperm alone will not become a baby (neither the egg). this I think, at the very least, is a good counter-argument to the question. It answers the question from a definitive point of view. It also avoids subjective questions such as when "life/sentience/consciousness" really begins.
Killing a potential human life and killing a human life are different matters.
As most people do not believe a zygote is a human life, they are not worried about the flushing issue. But because the abortion debate is about when a fetus is a human life, it is the important issue.
But because the abortion debate is about when a fetus is a human life, it is the important issue.
That is not what the abortion debate is entirely about. See the above argument IVT rose about the law with scott peterson. Where someone who is not the mother kills the fetus, and is charged with murder. While the mother can have an abortion and have no consequences legally. Apparently the law doesn't think its about when a fetus is a human life.
Have you not heard of the term 'pro-choice'? As opposed to the "pro-life" stance..
I don't mean to be brass, but you just skip around this point everytime I bring it up. You are only considering the baby and not the mothers welfare / well being in the manner. You're taking one aspect of the situation and ignoring the other, the most I've seen you address is it is saying everyone should have a baby everytime their pregnant or not have sex at all.
In theory your above argument works, but in reality humans are imperfect, we all make mistakes.
and we need to face those mistakes with some balls....eg by keeping the baby
oh and by the way, its 'crass', not 'brass' :teeth:
Hey dumb ass, guess what? Women don't have testicles AKA 'balls'.
Do you want to seriously respond to anything or just make dumb inflammatory remarks? There are consequences to keeping babies when you are not emotionally / monetarily prepared.
If you don't have anything useful to contribute don't bother, since you keep playing the scapegoat.
[B] I don't mean to be brass, but you just skip around this point everytime I bring it up. You are only considering the baby and not the mothers welfare / well being in the manner. You're taking one aspect of the situation and ignoring the other, the most I've seen you address is it is saying everyone should have a baby everytime their pregnant or not have sex at all.
If the mother knows she cannot raise the child or that her being pregnant would bring danger to her health, then why would she allow herself to be pregnant in the first place?
I know there are cases where a woman becomes pregnant first and then finds out that it will bring danger to her health or that there may be sudden changes in her lifestyle which would certainly affect whether she should have an abortion or not. But I do not think the controversy on abortion is on cases where the mother will most likely die unless she aborts her baby (as the focus of that is on a case to case basis depending on the mother). The controversy is on whether the act of abortion itself is right or wrong depending on what stage a fetus is considered human.
If the mother knows she cannot raise the child or that her being pregnant would bring danger to her health, then why would she allow herself to be pregnant in the first place?
Is this a question of morality or consequence? You can say that a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of her own irresponsibility is wrong or stupid, but this doesn't change the circumstances. You can say that abortion is evil, but then how should women be punished for it?
I suppose Campus For Life (I would be interested in finding out if this is truly a student-run organization) tries to change social norms so that people decide not to abort. This is fundamentally about deciding- or "discovering" as I imagine some would be inclined to say- what is moral. This is well and good. Any attempt to take it further would fail.
If the mother knows she cannot raise the child or that her being pregnant would bring danger to her health, then why would she allow herself to be pregnant in the first place?
I know there are cases where a woman becomes pregnant first and then finds out that it will bring danger to her health or that there may be sudden changes in her lifestyle which would certainly affect whether she should have an abortion or not. But I do not think the controversy on abortion is on cases where the mother will most likely die unless she aborts her baby (as the focus of that is on a case to case basis depending on the mother). The controversy is on whether the act of abortion itself is right or wrong depending on what stage a fetus is considered human.
And again you entirely miss the fact that I have been normatively making the entire time. You chose to take one point I said in a larger argument and play it out of context. I even said the entire time the risk of death is low. I was making the point that since child birth and rearing has consequences, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to go through with them, not you, not IVT or anyone else. Why do you chose to take comments out of context? Are you unable to properly counter my points, or do you not understand them?
The controversy is not on whether the act is right or wrong, it's PART of it. If you think abortion is so wrong, then you want to limit a woman's choice to keep it or not. There you go, choice right there.
It's about a womans choice, people try to limit this choice by saying its right or wrong morally, and guess what, the law, and noone else who is reasonable, cares-- because they know its none of their business, and a dangerous encroachment on civil liberties.
--
Are you a virgin? I'm just curious if that is the reason you have no ability to empathize with sexual / intimate acts. You and IVT can sit there all day until the cows come home and say people shouldn't have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, it doesn't change a thing. Frankly, it just shows ignorance on your part of the reality of human sexual / intimate interactions. It's also not constructive in any manner for debate. You guys are implying that its better to ruin up to two lives, because all you care about is human life in its biological conceptual form.
I'm not even going to bother responding now because I feel like there is only so many times I can try to logically make points and repeat them 8 times, and you guys avoid them. I think I've made all the points I need to / can make. Go revisit them and respond, in context and maybe I'll continue the debate.
Do you guys believe in restricting freedom of speech as well, or limiting other personal rights people have? You're just going to respond now with the whole "fetus have rights too", but guess what, the fetus is entirely dependant on the mother to come to term. Without the mother the fetus is nothing, thus, the womans choice to keep a child is paramount-- and the babys rights are only tenative depending on the mother bringing it to term, it would not live otherwise, thus is not protected by the law. Are you guys even aware of the birth complications in earlier generations when people were not allowed to get abortions and didn't take care of themselves? Think about the consequences of what you preach, instead of one aspect of it.
Is this a question of morality or consequence? You can say that a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of her own irresponsibility is wrong or stupid, but this doesn't change the circumstances.
Finally someone with common sense. I think morality and consequence or intertwined. I don't think its moral to carry a child into the world if it is not wanted, or you can't care for it. Regardless, morals don't matter because they aren't constructive to the debate.
These people keep proclaiming their own morals, and really don't even care what happens to the baby or the mother afterwards. They don't offer any alternatives, and just say, carry the baby to term and deal with the consequences later.
What's next, are they going to start locking women up and forcing them to take proper nutrtion, and house them for nine months under protective care to ensure no babies have complications?
I was making the point that since child birth and rearing has consequences, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to go through with them, not you, not IVT or anyone else. Why do you chose to take comments out of context? Are you unable to properly counter my points, or do you not understand them?
How am I not responding to your comments? I was making the point that since child birth rearing has consequences, and that if a woman has the right to choose whether or not to go through with them, then why the hell would she want to get pregnant in the first place if she is going the abortion route?
To make it simpler:
1. A woman knows child rearing has consequences. 2. A woman chooses to becomes pregnant. 3. A woman can choose whether to keep or abort the baby. ------------------------------------------------------------- 4. If she chooses to keep the baby, then no problem. 5. If she chooses abortion, then why would she want to be pregnant in the first place?
So, in essence, why would a woman choose to become pregnant knowing that she will choose abortion? Sure, there is no law stating that a woman cannot do this, as if it is some game to become pregnant and then abort it, but I do not think that that is what abortion is for.
These people keep proclaiming their own morals, and really don't even care what happens to the baby or the mother afterwards. They don't offer any alternatives, and just say, carry the baby to term and deal with the consequences later.
It is because people care about what happens to the baby or a human life which is the basis for the abortion debate. Is becoming pregnant and then aborting the fetus a better alternative than not choosing to become pregnant in the first place? I really do not think so. I don't think anyone stated just carry the baby to term and deal with consequences later as that would not have anything to do with abortion. The debate is when is it ok to do abortion as doing it too late may mean murder. And I know the woman has the choice to abort the fetus even if it means murder, but that would not make the action a right one.
Comments
i mean, it is not possible for a female to reproduce asexually and the egg is only half the genetic make up for a zygote. therefore it cannot be produced into a child, nor does it have to potential to produce a child without the contribution of sperm and the other 50% of its dna.
and like you stated, they are saying that the potential exists when the zygote is created. meaning that the two contributions of genetic material have come together to create the new "potential". an egg on its own possess no potential to become a living being without being first fertilized by a sperm.
your "logical continuation" of the pro-life stated position seems like a logical fallacy. because it is not possible for every egg to become fertilized as sometimes fertilization is not always a result of sexual encounter.
To attack this point, you can either accept that the zygote is human, but argue that it's still morally permissible to kill it, as randomuser does.
Or you could argue that a zygote is not human.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that if abortion is killing a child, keeping sperm and eggs from one another is like cutting a child in half. Makes just as much sense.
Basically the last arguments revolve around the question of when the potential for life begins. (although you're probably gonna jump me because for you it's not a question of when)
Ferrous pushed it back to way before the formation of the zygote (sperm and egg still separated). So I'm asking whether or not he still believes so even after the others have already made a proposition that, if anything, the potential technically begins when we have the zygote, because a sperm or an egg alone won't do the job. There's no "potential" child with just the sperm or just the egg alone.
This could also mean contraceptives do not kill "potential" babies because they're stopping it before there's even any potential. i'm just goin circles now.
I feel like I'm tilting at windmills here though since it seems like no one is actually advocating the at-conception position. I just wanted to make it clear that it's totally untenable and not based on anything resembling genuine evidence. As for my own position, I think you should be allowed to abort them until they learn to talk.
At which point the argument of sentience comes up, at which point the pro-lifers also have to distinguish why humans are morally better than any other creatures or living things on this planet that we trample over and murder everyday.
The argument is subjective and cannot come to a resolution, unlike my argument which uses objective claims.
I was trying to show in that example of how far you can push back the concept of "life", and then was waiting for someone to throw in the sentience argumen, to show how "species" eccentric the sentience argument is.
I figured at that point everyone would just agree to disagree on their stances, and pick up on or debate my point of choice, but I guess not.
As most people do not believe a zygote is a human life, they are not worried about the flushing issue. But because the abortion debate is about when a fetus is a human life, it is the important issue.
That is not what the abortion debate is entirely about. See the above argument IVT rose about the law with scott peterson. Where someone who is not the mother kills the fetus, and is charged with murder. While the mother can have an abortion and have no consequences legally. Apparently the law doesn't think its about when a fetus is a human life.
Have you not heard of the term 'pro-choice'? As opposed to the "pro-life" stance..
I don't mean to be brass, but you just skip around this point everytime I bring it up. You are only considering the baby and not the mothers welfare / well being in the manner. You're taking one aspect of the situation and ignoring the other, the most I've seen you address is it is saying everyone should have a baby everytime their pregnant or not have sex at all.
In theory your above argument works, but in reality humans are imperfect, we all make mistakes.
oh and by the way, its 'crass', not 'brass' :teeth:
Do you want to seriously respond to anything or just make dumb inflammatory remarks? There are consequences to keeping babies when you are not emotionally / monetarily prepared.
If you don't have anything useful to contribute don't bother, since you keep playing the scapegoat.
I know there are cases where a woman becomes pregnant first and then finds out that it will bring danger to her health or that there may be sudden changes in her lifestyle which would certainly affect whether she should have an abortion or not. But I do not think the controversy on abortion is on cases where the mother will most likely die unless she aborts her baby (as the focus of that is on a case to case basis depending on the mother). The controversy is on whether the act of abortion itself is right or wrong depending on what stage a fetus is considered human.
I suppose Campus For Life (I would be interested in finding out if this is truly a student-run organization) tries to change social norms so that people decide not to abort. This is fundamentally about deciding- or "discovering" as I imagine some would be inclined to say- what is moral. This is well and good. Any attempt to take it further would fail.
The controversy is not on whether the act is right or wrong, it's PART of it. If you think abortion is so wrong, then you want to limit a woman's choice to keep it or not. There you go, choice right there.
It's about a womans choice, people try to limit this choice by saying its right or wrong morally, and guess what, the law, and noone else who is reasonable, cares-- because they know its none of their business, and a dangerous encroachment on civil liberties.
--
Are you a virgin? I'm just curious if that is the reason you have no ability to empathize with sexual / intimate acts. You and IVT can sit there all day until the cows come home and say people shouldn't have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, it doesn't change a thing. Frankly, it just shows ignorance on your part of the reality of human sexual / intimate interactions. It's also not constructive in any manner for debate. You guys are implying that its better to ruin up to two lives, because all you care about is human life in its biological conceptual form.
I'm not even going to bother responding now because I feel like there is only so many times I can try to logically make points and repeat them 8 times, and you guys avoid them. I think I've made all the points I need to / can make. Go revisit them and respond, in context and maybe I'll continue the debate.
Do you guys believe in restricting freedom of speech as well, or limiting other personal rights people have? You're just going to respond now with the whole "fetus have rights too", but guess what, the fetus is entirely dependant on the mother to come to term. Without the mother the fetus is nothing, thus, the womans choice to keep a child is paramount-- and the babys rights are only tenative depending on the mother bringing it to term, it would not live otherwise, thus is not protected by the law. Are you guys even aware of the birth complications in earlier generations when people were not allowed to get abortions and didn't take care of themselves? Think about the consequences of what you preach, instead of one aspect of it.
These people keep proclaiming their own morals, and really don't even care what happens to the baby or the mother afterwards. They don't offer any alternatives, and just say, carry the baby to term and deal with the consequences later.
What's next, are they going to start locking women up and forcing them to take proper nutrtion, and house them for nine months under protective care to ensure no babies have complications?
Oi.
I'll make this really simple.
Premises:
1. It is wrong to knowingly kill an innocent human.
2. A fetus is human (according to Pro-Life groups)
3. Abortion kills a fetus.
Conclusion:
4. Abortion is wrong.
is that a picture of brick top in your dp?
Fuck consequences!
I'm not saying don't have sex, I'm saying be ready to deal w/ the outcomes.
To make it simpler:
1. A woman knows child rearing has consequences.
2. A woman chooses to becomes pregnant.
3. A woman can choose whether to keep or abort the baby.
-------------------------------------------------------------
4. If she chooses to keep the baby, then no problem.
5. If she chooses abortion, then why would she want to be pregnant in the first place?
So, in essence, why would a woman choose to become pregnant knowing that she will choose abortion? Sure, there is no law stating that a woman cannot do this, as if it is some game to become pregnant and then abort it, but I do not think that that is what abortion is for. It is because people care about what happens to the baby or a human life which is the basis for the abortion debate. Is becoming pregnant and then aborting the fetus a better alternative than not choosing to become pregnant in the first place? I really do not think so. I don't think anyone stated just carry the baby to term and deal with consequences later as that would not have anything to do with abortion. The debate is when is it ok to do abortion as doing it too late may mean murder. And I know the woman has the choice to abort the fetus even if it means murder, but that would not make the action a right one.