Abortion ****

[QUOTE="Jigsaw9798"]

[QUOTE="Kuhu"]I don't see anything wrong with abortion.Kuhu

Yeah, this world is overpopulated enough and there are so many ways that an unexpected pregnancy can happen. Rape, Broken condom, forgetting a condom,etc. Also what if the mother is poor, ill,can't take care of the child for some reason, orthe baby will have serious incorrectable birth defects. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against late abortions because then you are actually killing something that might have feelings but until then it is a bunch of stem cells which can go to a very important research that could save and improve millions of lives if you do happen to choose abortion.

If my mother got raped, and I was the outcome; Or if I was some mistake, I would rather be aborted then live my life with such a label.

Why? If your mother keeps you it's obviously because she loves you, and if she puts you up for adoption you would probably never even know about the circumstances of your conception. Either way, you LIVE.

Death =/= punishment. And I hardly see how you can feel any sense of injustice over an unconcious, unthinking cluster of cells incapable of feeling pain.

Unless you were referring to late-stage abortions in which case I agree with you. :P

Foetuses can be confirmed to have these problems while still in the womb.

Funky_Llama

Late stage, early stage, mid stage, it's all the same to me. The only one that's different is partial birth abortion, which is worse.

Again, examples?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Completely different =/= greater right to life.

Theokhoth

Yeah, it kinda does. An embryo grows into a baby; a lone sperm cell does not.

:lol: completely different does equal greater right to life? Heh... well, a tree is completely different to you, so I suppose it has a greater right to life, yes?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Completely different =/= greater right to life.

Funky_Llama

Yeah, it kinda does. An embryo grows into a baby; a lone sperm cell does not.

:lol: completely different does equal greater right to life? Heh... well, a tree is completely different to you, so I suppose it has a greater right to life, yes?

An embryo grows into a human, a tree does not. Therefore, an embryo has a greater right to human life than a tree, or a sperm cell, which will never change.

You're pulling more strawmen.

[QUOTE="Kuhu"][QUOTE="Jigsaw9798"]

[QUOTE="Kuhu"]I don't see anything wrong with abortion.Theokhoth

Yeah, this world is overpopulated enough and there are so many ways that an unexpected pregnancy can happen. Rape, Broken condom, forgetting a condom,etc. Also what if the mother is poor, ill,can't take care of the child for some reason, orthe baby will have serious incorrectable birth defects. Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against late abortions because then you are actually killing something that might have feelings but until then it is a bunch of stem cells which can go to a very important research that could save and improve millions of lives if you do happen to choose abortion.

If my mother got raped, and I was the outcome; Or if I was some mistake, I would rather be aborted then live my life with such a label.

Why? If your mother keeps you it's obviously because she loves you, and if she puts you up for adoption you would probably never even know about the circumstances of your conception. Either way, you LIVE.

She either loves me or she pities me. If there is one thing in the world that is worse then being hated, its being pitied.

She either loves me or she pities me. If there is one thing in the world that is worse then being hated, its being pitied.

Kuhu

Why would she pity you and keep you? It's not an either/or thing, either.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Death =/= punishment. And I hardly see how you can feel any sense of injustice over an unconcious, unthinking cluster of cells incapable of feeling pain.

Unless you were referring to late-stage abortions in which case I agree with you. :P

Foetuses can be confirmed to have these problems while still in the womb.

Theokhoth

Late stage, early stage, mid stage, it's all the same to me. The only one that's different is partial birth abortion, which is worse.

Again, examples?

:lol: Really? You honestly think that this:

can be considered the same as a conscious, breathing, thinking, pain-feeling baby in late-stage development? You might want to rethink that. ;)

And whether they're 'the same to you' is different is irrelevant; they're different, whether you recognise that or not.

What do you mean, examples? I don't know any. What I do know is that thanks to technology such as MRI scans, problems can be seen beforehand.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Completely different =/= greater right to life.

Theokhoth

Yeah, it kinda does. An embryo grows into a baby; a lone sperm cell does not.

:lol: completely different does equal greater right to life? Heh... well, a tree is completely different to you, so I suppose it has a greater right to life, yes?

An embryo grows into a human, a tree does not. Therefore, an embryo has a greater right to human life than a tree, or a sperm cell, which will never change.

You're pulling more strawmen.

You said that completely different =/= greater right to life. By that logic, a tree is completely different to you, so it should have a greater right to life. The fact that an embryo grows into a human and a tree does not is irrelevant to this particular point of discussion; we are arguing over whether, in general, not in specific circumstances,
completely different =/= greater right to life. And it quite obviously doesn't.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Death =/= punishment. And I hardly see how you can feel any sense of injustice over an unconcious, unthinking cluster of cells incapable of feeling pain.

Unless you were referring to late-stage abortions in which case I agree with you. :P

Foetuses can be confirmed to have these problems while still in the womb.

Funky_Llama

Late stage, early stage, mid stage, it's all the same to me. The only one that's different is partial birth abortion, which is worse.

Again, examples?

:lol: Really? You honestly think that this:

can be considered the same as a conscious, breathing, thinking, pain-feeling baby in late-stage development? You might want to rethink that. ;)

And whether they're 'the same to you' is different is irrelevant; they're different, whether you recognise that or not.

What do you mean, examples? I don't know any. What I do know is that thanks to technology such as MRI scans, problems can be seen beforehand.

They're different, but they all have the same right to life. They're all the same to me. I don't believe in defining life based on how it looks, like we were doing with black people 200 years ago.

And if you don't know, then you're just begging the question by saying we can.

You said that completely different =/= greater right to life.

No, YOU said that.

By that logic, a tree is completely different to you, so it should have a greater right to life.

:lol: You're taking what I said WAY out of context. We are talking about a sperm and an embryo, not about a tree and a human. STRAWMAN and Red herring.

The fact that an embryo grows into a human and a tree does not is irrelevant to this particular point of discussion; we are arguing over whether, in general, not in specific circumstances,
completely different =/= greater right to life. And it quite obviously doesn't.

No we are not arguing that, and we never were. Moving the goalpost.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Death =/= punishment. And I hardly see how you can feel any sense of injustice over an unconcious, unthinking cluster of cells incapable of feeling pain.

Unless you were referring to late-stage abortions in which case I agree with you. :P

Foetuses can be confirmed to have these problems while still in the womb.

Theokhoth

Late stage, early stage, mid stage, it's all the same to me. The only one that's different is partial birth abortion, which is worse.

Again, examples?

:lol: Really? You honestly think that this:

can be considered the same as a conscious, breathing, thinking, pain-feeling baby in late-stage development? You might want to rethink that. ;)

And whether they're 'the same to you' is different is irrelevant; they're different, whether you recognise that or not.

What do you mean, examples? I don't know any. What I do know is that thanks to technology such as MRI scans, problems can be seen beforehand.

They're different, but they all have the same right to life. They're all the same to me. I don't believe in defining life based on how it looks, like we were doing with black people 200 years ago.

And if you don't know, then you're just begging the question by saying we can.

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

The only person that has a right to decide, for all real and practical purposes, is a mother.

So I am pro-choice. Do I agree with "killing" babies? No, I find it very distasteful. But what I find even more distasteful is forcing another's belief (prolife) onto someone, which is in my opinion far worse than the possibility of abortion.

Prochoice is exactly that: a choice. No one is being forced against their will to do something that is an ethical dilemna and therefore a personal dilemna.

If we adopt a prolife policy (i.e. no abortions allowed) we might as well adopt a procheddar policy, where everyone is forced to eat cheddar cheese and nothing else :roll:

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

ReddestSkies

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

You said that completely different =/= greater right to life.

No, YOU said that.

Oops... I meant you say:You said that completely different = greater right to life.

By that logic, a tree is completely different to you, so it should have a greater right to life.

:lol: You're taking what I said WAY out of context. We are talking about a sperm and an embryo, not about a tree and a human. STRAWMAN and Red herring.

Given that I'm the one who said thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life, and that's what we're discussing, how could I have taken what you said out of context?

The fact that an embryo grows into a human and a tree does not is irrelevant to this particular point of discussion; we are arguing over whether, in general, not in specific circumstances,
completely different =/= greater right to life. And it quite obviously doesn't.

No we are not arguing that, and we never were. Moving the goalpost.

Pfft. You don't get to decide what I meant with my claim thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life. I'm talkingin general.

And have you considered that the embryo and the sperm are completely different to each other, and thus, by your logic, must both have a greater right to life?

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

Theokhoth

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

You do like accusing people of straw men, don't you? You may like to know that what he's saying is not a straw man argument, because he is not misrepresenting your views. Fail.

You're assuming that embryos have the human right to life, which is begging the question given that that's what we're debating. And as I said before, sperm cells also have the potential to have the human right to life.

[QUOTE="Kuhu"]

She either loves me or she pities me. If there is one thing in the world that is worse then being hated, its being pitied.

Theokhoth

Why would she pity you and keep you? It's not an either/or thing, either.

Because she could feel sorry? There are quite a few parents that do this, and end up hating their children in the end.

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]I agree with your post.ShadowofTulkas

I'll second that.

:lol: You're taking what I said WAY out of context. We are talking about a sperm and an embryo, not about a tree and a human. STRAWMAN and Red herring.

Given that I'm the one who said thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life, and that's what we're discussing, how could I have taken what you said out of context?

You took my answer to your statement out of context.

The fact that an embryo grows into a human and a tree does not is irrelevant to this particular point of discussion; we are arguing over whether, in general, not in specific circumstances,
completely different =/= greater right to life. And it quite obviously doesn't.

No we are not arguing that, and we never were. Moving the goalpost.

Pfft. You don't get to decide what I meant with my claim thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life. I'm talkingin general.

Then your statement is a red herring, as it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

And have you considered that the embryo and the sperm are completely different to each other, and thus, by your logic, must both have a greater right to life?

What? The thing that makes them different is potential. The embryo WILL become a human, the sperm WILL NOT. Therefore, the embryo has the greater right to human life than a sperm.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Now you can say I'm just trying to play to people's emotions, but I'm just giving you the TRUTH. PannicAtack

It IS an appeal to emotion. It's an appeal to disgust. It's no different than what animal rights activists post about slaughterhouses. You are simply trying to convince people by grossing them out. >_>

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

Theokhoth

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

Those lumps of cells are inferior to plants in every way. It doesn't matter if they have potential or not.

The only person that has a right to decide, for all real and practical purposes, is a mother.

So I am pro-choice. Do I agree with "killing" babies? No, I find it very distasteful. But what I find even more distasteful is forcing another's belief (prolife) onto someone, which is in my opinion far worse than the possibility of abortion.

Prochoice is exactly that: a choice. No one is being forced against their will to do something that is an ethical dilemna and therefore a personal dilemna.

If we adopt a prolife policy (i.e. no abortions allowed) we might as well adopt a procheddar policy, where everyone is forced to eat cheddar cheese and nothing else :roll:

mrbojangles25

Hmm... the problem there is that, if abortion is wrong, then it is the killing of another being, and is thus not personal. So if it were wrong, I think society would be obliged to prohibit it.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

Funky_Llama

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

You do like accusing people of straw men, don't you?

People like to pull them.

You may like to know that what he's saying is not a straw man argument, because he is not misrepresenting your views. Fail.

Actuyally, he is. He is saying that I am saying that the fact the baby is alive is why I'm against abortion. That is not my position. It is a strawman.

You're assuming that embryos have the human right to life, which is begging the question given that that's what we're debating.

You have yet to give any reason why it shouldn't have the human right to life, other than it does not look like it, which, as history demonstrates, is not and never will be a valid excuse.

And as I said before, sperm cells also have the potential to have the human right to life.

No, they don't. A lone sperm cell grows up and dies. No human about it. It has to mix with an egg first.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: You're taking what I said WAY out of context. We are talking about a sperm and an embryo, not about a tree and a human. STRAWMAN and Red herring.

Given that I'm the one who said thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life, and that's what we're discussing, how could I have taken what you said out of context?

You took my answer to your statement out of context.

Ooh, pretty colours! Ahem. Sorry. Anyway, how did I take your response out of context?

The fact that an embryo grows into a human and a tree does not is irrelevant to this particular point of discussion; we are arguing over whether, in general, not in specific circumstances,
completely different =/= greater right to life. And it quite obviously doesn't.

No we are not arguing that, and we never were. Moving the goalpost.

Pfft. You don't get to decide what I meant with my claim thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life. I'm talkingin general.

Then your statement is a red herring, as it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Yes it does: if it applies in general, then it applies to everything: including abortion.

And have you considered that the embryo and the sperm are completely different to each other, and thus, by your logic, must both have a greater right to life?

What? The thing that makes them different is potential. The embryo WILL become a human, the sperm WILL NOT. Therefore, the embryo has the greater right to human life than a sperm.

No, the embryo could become a human, and the sperm could become a human.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

ReddestSkies

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

Those lumps of cells are inferior to plants in every way. It doesn't matter if they have potential or not.

That's your opinion, and nothing more. They have human genetic coding, and all of the human genetic coding they will ever have.

No, they don't. A lone sperm cell grows up and dies. No human about it. It has to mix with an egg first.

Theokhoth

Put a lone fetus on a table. See what happens.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: You're taking what I said WAY out of context. We are talking about a sperm and an embryo, not about a tree and a human. STRAWMAN and Red herring.

Given that I'm the one who said thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life, and that's what we're discussing, how could I have taken what you said out of context?

You took my answer to your statement out of context.

Ooh, pretty colours! Ahem. Sorry. Anyway, how did I take your response out of context?

I was responding to the embryo/sperm debate, not a general "if it's different, it's better" response.

The fact that an embryo grows into a human and a tree does not is irrelevant to this particular point of discussion; we are arguing over whether, in general, not in specific circumstances,
completely different =/= greater right to life. And it quite obviously doesn't.

No we are not arguing that, and we never were. Moving the goalpost.

Pfft. You don't get to decide what I meant with my claim thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life. I'm talkingin general.

Then your statement is a red herring, as it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Yes it does: if it applies in general, then it applies to everything: including abortion.

Then embryos have a greater right to life than a sperm. Are you going to continue with this?

And have you considered that the embryo and the sperm are completely different to each other, and thus, by your logic, must both have a greater right to life?

What? The thing that makes them different is potential. The embryo WILL become a human, the sperm WILL NOT. Therefore, the embryo has the greater right to human life than a sperm.

No, the embryo could become a human, and the sperm could become a human.

Are you telling me that, left to its own for nine months, the embryo won't become a human? I'd like to see some papers supporting this.

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

Theokhoth

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

You do like accusing people of straw men, don't you?

People like to pull them.

Pfft, it's ridiculous to suggest that everyone likes to pull straw men. :P

You may like to know that what he's saying is not a straw man argument, because he is not misrepresenting your views. Fail.

Actuyally, he is. He is saying that I am saying that the fact the baby is alive is why I'm against abortion. That is not my position. It is a strawman.

Oh yeah, he was, didn't see that. Touche. ;)

You're assuming that embryos have the human right to life, which is begging the question given that that's what we're debating.

You have yet to give any reason why it shouldn't have the human right to life, other than it does not look like it, which, as history demonstrates, is not and never will be a valid excuse.

Hey, a straw man of your own! :lol: At what point did I suggest that just because an embryo doesn't look like a baby means that it shouldn't have a right to life?
Oh, and by the way, the burden of proof is on you. You should be telling me why they should have human right to life.

And as I said before, sperm cells also have the potential to have the human right to life.

No, they don't. A lone sperm cell grows up and dies. No human about it. It has to mix with an egg first.

And another straw man from you. :lol: When did I mention lone sperm cells? I'm talking in general about sperm cells.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

The only person that has a right to decide, for all real and practical purposes, is a mother.

So I am pro-choice. Do I agree with "killing" babies? No, I find it very distasteful. But what I find even more distasteful is forcing another's belief (prolife) onto someone, which is in my opinion far worse than the possibility of abortion.

Prochoice is exactly that: a choice. No one is being forced against their will to do something that is an ethical dilemna and therefore a personal dilemna.

If we adopt a prolife policy (i.e. no abortions allowed) we might as well adopt a procheddar policy, where everyone is forced to eat cheddar cheese and nothing else :roll:

Funky_Llama

Hmm... the problem there is that, if abortion is wrong, then it is the killing of another being, and is thus not personal. So if it were wrong, I think society would be obliged to prohibit it.

I agree, but it is not technicallly wrong. If abortion were as simple as saying "one plus one equals three" then we could say "youre wrong, abortion, take a hike"

but, as I said, its a moral dilemna that has no negative impact on society. It may upset the family, but on the whole youre on not taking a conscious life that is contributing to society.

As for "potential" life, well, if we used the "potential" argument to further prolife policies, whats to stop us from using it other instances? If a parent does cocaine, wouldnt you say their kid has the potential to follow in their steps?

We cant form policies about what could be, open what is. And as of right now only mother's know how they feel about their unborn childs and their future.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

Theokhoth

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

Those lumps of cells are inferior to plants in every way. It doesn't matter if they have potential or not.

That's your opinion, and nothing more. They have human genetic coding, and all of the human genetic coding they will ever have.

Explain why people have "the human right to life" and plants don't, and then see that your explanation does not actually grant that right to lumps of cells who happen to be genetically human. (Hint: the reason for the "human right to life" is not based on blind bias towards our own species.)

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, they don't. A lone sperm cell grows up and dies. No human about it. It has to mix with an egg first.

ReddestSkies

Put a lone fetus on a table. See what happens.

It'll die. Mainly because you're taking it out of its place of development. TOTALLY the same thing.:lol: A sperm will die if it leaves the penis an egg will die if it leaves the ovaries, a fetus will die if it leaves the womb when it isn't supposed to. Left in the womb, however, and the fetus will live and grow provided there are no complications. The sperm will, too, but it will not become a human. It will die. An egg will, too, but it will not become a human. It will die.

The only person that has a right to decide, for all real and practical purposes, is a mother.

So I am pro-choice. Do I agree with "killing" babies? No, I find it very distasteful. But what I find even more distasteful is forcing another's belief (prolife) onto someone, which is in my opinion far worse than the possibility of abortion.

Prochoice is exactly that: a choice. No one is being forced against their will to do something that is an ethical dilemna and therefore a personal dilemna.

If we adopt a prolife policy (i.e. no abortions allowed) we might as well adopt a procheddar policy, where everyone is forced to eat cheddar cheese and nothing else :roll:

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: You're taking what I said WAY out of context. We are talking about a sperm and an embryo, not about a tree and a human. STRAWMAN and Red herring.

Given that I'm the one who said thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life, and that's what we're discussing, how could I have taken what you said out of context?

You took my answer to your statement out of context.

Ooh, pretty colours! Ahem. Sorry. Anyway, how did I take your response out of context?

I was responding to the embryo/sperm debate, not a general "if it's different, it's better" response.

In that case, you were responding to me out of context because I was talking in general.

The fact that an embryo grows into a human and a tree does not is irrelevant to this particular point of discussion; we are arguing over whether, in general, not in specific circumstances,
completely different =/= greater right to life. And it quite obviously doesn't.

No we are not arguing that, and we never were. Moving the goalpost.

Pfft. You don't get to decide what I meant with my claim thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life. I'm talkingin general.

Then your statement is a red herring, as it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Yes it does: if it applies in general, then it applies to everything: including abortion.

Then embryos have a greater right to life than a sperm. Are you going to continue with this?

If embryos have a greater right to life than a sperm, it is not merely because they are different. It would be because of the nature of those differences.

And have you considered that the embryo and the sperm are completely different to each other, and thus, by your logic, must both have a greater right to life?

What? The thing that makes them different is potential. The embryo WILL become a human, the sperm WILL NOT. Therefore, the embryo has the greater right to human life than a sperm.

No, the embryo could become a human, and the sperm could become a human.

Are you telling me that, left to its own for nine months, the embryo won't become a human? I'd like to see some papers supporting this.

No, I'm not, and that's both irrelevant and a straw man.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, they don't. A lone sperm cell grows up and dies. No human about it. It has to mix with an egg first.

Theokhoth

Put a lone fetus on a table. See what happens.

It'll die. Mainly because you're taking it out of its place of development. TOTALLY the same thing.:lol: A sperm will die if it leaves the penis an egg will die if it leaves the ovaries, a fetus will die if it leaves the womb when it isn't supposed to. Left in the womb, however, and the fetus will live and grow provided there are no complications. The sperm will, too, but it will not become a human. It will die. An egg will, too, but it will not become a human. It will die.

They are all parasitic by nature, and they all only grow into humans under specific conditions. They are fairly similar.

It's also interesting to see you, out of all people, say that an example is exaggerated, Mr. "killing lumps of cells because they don't look human is the same thing as enslaving black people". ^_-

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

The only person that has a right to decide, for all real and practical purposes, is a mother.

So I am pro-choice. Do I agree with "killing" babies? No, I find it very distasteful. But what I find even more distasteful is forcing another's belief (prolife) onto someone, which is in my opinion far worse than the possibility of abortion.

Prochoice is exactly that: a choice. No one is being forced against their will to do something that is an ethical dilemna and therefore a personal dilemna.

If we adopt a prolife policy (i.e. no abortions allowed) we might as well adopt a procheddar policy, where everyone is forced to eat cheddar cheese and nothing else :roll:

mrbojangles25

Hmm... the problem there is that, if abortion is wrong, then it is the killing of another being, and is thus not personal. So if it were wrong, I think society would be obliged to prohibit it.

I agree, but it is not technicallly wrong. If abortion were as simple as saying "one plus one equals three" then we could say "youre wrong, abortion, take a hike"

but, as I said, its a moral dilemna that has no negative impact on society. It may upset the family, but on the whole youre on not taking a conscious life that is contributing to society.

As for "potential" life, well, if we used the "potential" argument to further prolife policies, whats to stop us from using it other instances? If a parent does cocaine, wouldnt you say their kid has the potential to follow in their steps?

We cant form policies about what could be, open what is. And as of right now only mother's know how they feel about their unborn childs and their future.

By the logic of the foetus not contributing to society, murdering someone on benefits would be fine.

Also, I don't go for the 'potential' argument. I'm pro-choice.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

No, they don't. A lone sperm cell grows up and dies. No human about it. It has to mix with an egg first.

Theokhoth

Put a lone fetus on a table. See what happens.

It'll die. Mainly because you're taking it out of its place of development. TOTALLY the same thing.:lol: A sperm will die if it leaves the penis an egg will die if it leaves the ovaries, a fetus will die if it leaves the womb when it isn't supposed to. Left in the womb, however, and the fetus will live and grow provided there are no complications. The sperm will, too, but it will not become a human. It will die. An egg will, too, but it will not become a human. It will die.

And a lone sperm is out of its place of development. ;)

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

Funky_Llama

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

You do like accusing people of straw men, don't you?

People like to pull them.

Pfft, it's ridiculous to suggest that everyone likes to pull straw men. :P

I didn't suggest that. Strawman. ;)

You're assuming that embryos have the human right to life, which is begging the question given that that's what we're debating.

You have yet to give any reason why it shouldn't have the human right to life, other than it does not look like it, which, as history demonstrates, is not and never will be a valid excuse.

Hey, a straw man of your own! :lol: At what point did I suggest that just because an embryo doesn't look like a baby means that it shouldn't have a right to life?

When you posted a picture of a human embryo and said "does this Look like a baby to you?" :|

Oh, and by the way, the burden of proof is on you. You should be telling me why they should have human right to life.

The burden of proof is on you, as the supporter of abortion, to tell me why it is right and not hypocritical, immoral and wrong. Human embryos have the human right to life for several reasons:

1. Potential. Left in the womb an embryo will grow into a fully formed baby.

2. The right to decide when someone is not a human does not belong to anybody: not the mother, the courts, the father, or anybody. Humans should not be reduced by other humans to a status of inhumanity. History clearly demonstrates the cruelty this sort of action inevitably leads to.

3. Genetics. A human embryo has all the genetic information it will ever have, born or not. As far as genetics is concerned, it already is a human.

And as I said before, sperm cells also have the potential to have the human right to life.

No, they don't. A lone sperm cell grows up and dies. No human about it. It has to mix with an egg first.

And another straw man from you. :lol: When did I mention lone sperm cells? I'm talking in general about sperm cells.

:| General sperm cells are alone. :| they're the same thing. Until they mix with an egg.:roll: Be sure to use strawman correctly, rather than hunt for the smallest thing.

And a lone sperm is out of its place of development. ;)

Funky_Llama

No, it isn't. Lone sperm stay where they are made until they are "set free" and mixed with an egg.:|

:lol: You're taking what I said WAY out of context. We are talking about a sperm and an embryo, not about a tree and a human. STRAWMAN and Red herring.

Given that I'm the one who said thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life, and that's what we're discussing, how could I have taken what you said out of context?

You took my answer to your statement out of context.

Ooh, pretty colours! Ahem. Sorry. Anyway, how did I take your response out of context?

I was responding to the embryo/sperm debate, not a general "if it's different, it's better" response.

In that case, you were responding to me out of context because I was talking in general.

Then you should have made it apparent that you were talking in general. You should also avoid talking about things not having to do with the current discussion.;)

No we are not arguing that, and we never were. Moving the goalpost.

Pfft. You don't get to decide what I meant with my claim thatcompletely different =/= greater right to life. I'm talkingin general.

Then your statement is a red herring, as it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

Yes it does: if it applies in general, then it applies to everything: including abortion.

Then embryos have a greater right to life than a sperm. Are you going to continue with this?

If embryos have a greater right to life than a sperm, it is not merely because they are different. It would be because of the nature of those differences.

All right, then.

And have you considered that the embryo and the sperm are completely different to each other, and thus, by your logic, must both have a greater right to life?

What? The thing that makes them different is potential. The embryo WILL become a human, the sperm WILL NOT. Therefore, the embryo has the greater right to human life than a sperm.

No, the embryo could become a human, and the sperm could become a human.

Are you telling me that, left to its own for nine months, the embryo won't become a human? I'd like to see some papers supporting this.

No, I'm not, and that's both irrelevant and a straw man.

Then explain your statement. A lone sperm cannot become a human, ever.

Funky_Llama

Ugh, i hate ignorance. If you are going to debate me, fine, but don't use lame ass tactics in order to do so.

Stumpt25

Of course, since you don't agree with it, it's ignorant. :lol:

1. When a woman get's raped. She is entering sexual intercourse TOTALLY unvolentarily. If she doesn't use protection in consentual sex, then it's totally her fault if she gets pregnant. I didn't contradict myself.

Stumpt25

And there it is. You likened abortion to murdering a child. If it is, then it's too bad for the woman, she has to go through with child birth because a child's life is more important than the emotional well-being of a woman. It's called consistency, and you didn't have it. ;)

2. the "states" isn't the whole world. In the UK and many other european countries, 24 weeks is right.

Stumpt25

Then specify, because some people don't care about the abortion policies of other nations.

3. How can YOU decide that they won't appreciate the simple things in life?

Stumpt25

Simple, when it does not have a brain that can comprehend it. Pleasure isn't magical, it's chemical.

Furthermore, where the heck do you draw the line.

Stumpt25

Also simple. When the brain starts developing, which is about a month in. The brain is the only thing that gives us any capability to cherish things in the first place. The woman has had plenty of time to think about it by then.

"hmmm his arm hasn't fully developed but the rest of his body is normal...". It's so unfair, and it totally demeans the people who ARE disabled but still lead fulfilling lives.

Stumpt25

I don't understand what this has to do with my post.

4. This is a double edged sword. Where do YOU get your sources. Regardless whether either of us are right, MANY WOMEN die each year through unsafe abortion.

Stumpt25

No, it isn't. You pulled a BS statistic straight out of your ass, because no one knows a real figure. It might have been an educated guess, but you don't know because there is no accurate survey because it deals with something extremely illegal. Besides, the legality of abortion is not what you are trying to argue against, you're trying to argue against abortion itself. Bringing up whats illegal and what isn't doesn't help you or your argument, and since you stated that so many women die from illegal abortions each year, then it makes sense to make abortions cheaper or more accessible, since one dead is better than two dead.

5. Your last comment is a total contradiction (which is ironic because you accused me of contradictory). "Go do something else. but that guy who made the statement is awesome."

Stumpt25

It's called sarcasm. ;)

They are all parasitic by nature, and they all only grow into humans under specific conditions. They are fairly similar.

ReddestSkies

:lol:

A parasite is an organism living in another organism OF A DIFFERENT SPECIES. A human embryo or fetus is metabolically dependant on the mother of the SAME species. There is nothing parasitic about it.:roll:

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Comparing small lumps of cells with full-fledged human beings who simply happen to have more melanin is pretty extreme.

Plants are more "alive" than that "baby". Are you against the murder of plants too?

Theokhoth

Plants do not have the human right to life. They don't have the potential to have the human right to life. Are strawmen all you have?

You do like accusing people of straw men, don't you?

People like to pull them.

Pfft, it's ridiculous to suggest that everyone likes to pull straw men. :P

I didn't suggest that. Strawman. ;)

:lol: You don't do irony, do you? I know it's a strawman. It was deliberate. ;) I suspected you'd blindly fail to miss the :P.

You're assuming that embryos have the human right to life, which is begging the question given that that's what we're debating.

You have yet to give any reason why it shouldn't have the human right to life, other than it does not look like it, which, as history demonstrates, is not and never will be a valid excuse.

Hey, a straw man of your own! :lol: At what point did I suggest that just because an embryo doesn't look like a baby means that it shouldn't have a right to life?

When you posted a picture of a human embryo and said "does this Look like a baby to you?" :|

Heh... strange, I don't remember saying "does this look like a baby to you". Could you find where I said that?
I posted it to make clear that I was talking about very early age embryos, which from your continued use of the term 'baby' I assumed was a point you weren't grasping.

Oh, and by the way, the burden of proof is on you. You should be telling me why they should have human right to life.

The burden of proof is on you, as the supporter of abortion, to tell me why it is right and not hypocritical, immoral and wrong. Human embryos have the human right to life for several reasons:

1. Potential. Left in the womb an embryo will grow into a fully formed baby.

2. The right to decide when someone is not a human does not belong to anybody: not the mother, the courts, the father, or anybody. Humans should not be reduced by other humans to a status of inhumanity. History clearly demonstrates the cruelty this sort of action inevitably leads to.

3. Genetics. A human embryo has all the genetic information it will ever have, born or not. As far as genetics is concerned, it already is a human.

:lol: You really don't understand the principle of burden of proof, do you? I'm pretty sure the burden of proof wouldn't lead you to assume as your default position that something is wrong.

1. Irrelevant.

2. :lol: So first you say that no one should decide whether they're human (omitting to say why, except for a vague reference to the Nazis or something), and then you characterise them as humans. Great job there.

3. Are you aware that this would mean that every individual cell in my body would have individual right to life?Every human cell has the genetic information of the human it belongs to.

And as I said before, sperm cells also have the potential to have the human right to life.

No, they don't. A lone sperm cell grows up and dies. No human about it. It has to mix with an egg first.

And another straw man from you. :lol: When did I mention lone sperm cells? I'm talking in general about sperm cells.

:| General sperm cells are alone. :| they're the same thing. Until they mix with an egg.:roll: Be sure to use strawman correctly, rather than hunt for the smallest thing.

Pfft. 'lone' does not mean 'lacking an egg'. It means 'on its own'.

If you don't use protection, i'm sorry, i don't care about your "rights". The only time when i think abortion is good is when a woman is raped. She couldn't help getting pregnant and she has to live with the constant reminder of what happened to her.

Think about it this way. A baby can be aborted at 24 weeks old. BABIES CAN BE BORN AND SURVIVE AT 24 WEEKS. Let's say a woman, prematurely gives birth to a baby at 24 weeks, and then murders it on the same day. That woman would be ARRESTED. It makes no difference, however, if she coulda just killed it by aborting it.

Then people commonly approach my views with the whole: "What if the baby is deformed, or is going to be born very ill?". Abortion isn't the answer though! You can't just say "that baby is DEFINATELY not going to enjoy life". How do you know? you aren't giving it a chance. Doesn't it deserve to do all the little things that we take for granted, like seeing the colours of the sky, or listening to it's favourite song, or falling in love or thinking about something?

Let me ask YOU something. Do you know how many women die through unsafe abortions each year? 68,000. That's a disgrace. Not only might the baby die, but the women will too.

Michael Jay Tucker once said:

"If the anti-abortion movement took a tenth of the energy they put into noisy theatrics and devoted it to improving the lives of children who have been born into lives of poverty, violence, and neglect, they could make a world shine."

I would respond to this by saying that if liberals took a tenth of the energy they put into trying to save violent criminals from facing death row, and devoted it to improving the lives of children who have been born into lives of poverty, violence and neglect, they could make the world shine.

What are your thoughts on abortion? do you agree with anything i'm saying?

Stumpt25

fetuses from abortion are eaten in China, which is why i hate China, among other thingsre_up

They can if they want. Disgusting, yes, but not immoral. It would be the abortion that would be immoral, I think.

Heh... strange, I don't remember saying "does this look like a baby to you". Could you find where I said that?
I posted it to make clear that I was talking about very early age embryos, which from your continued use of the term 'baby' I assumed was a point you weren't grasping.

"Do you think this is the same as a living, breathing, conscious baby?"

:lol: You really don't understand the principle of burden of proof, do you? I'm pretty sure the burden of proof wouldn't lead you to assume as your default position that something is wrong.

Yeah, I don't understand the burdon of proof. Nevermind that I use the burden of proof every week in an auditorium full of college students and professors.:roll: YOU are the one who doesn't understand the burden of proof.

1. Irrelevant.

:lol: No.

2. :lol: So first you say that no one should decide whether they're human (omitting to say why, except for a vague reference to the Nazis or something), and then you characterise them as humans. Great job there.

All throughout history people have been defining other people as less than human. Sometimes it was the black people who were less than human. They were put into slavery. The Jews were defined as less than human by the Nazis. They were slaughtered. Non-Christians were defined as less than human by Crusaders in the middle ages. They were killed. I'm saying if it has the genetics of a human, the potential to be a human, and is a member of the human species, it should be considered a human regardless of its looks or birth status, and no other human has the right to redefine humanity.

3. Are you aware that this would mean that every individual cell in my body would have individual right to life?Every human cell has the genetic information of the human it belongs to.

:roll: None of your cells will grow off of you and become a human, unlike the embryo. Therefore, your cells are not the same thing.

Pfft. 'lone' does not mean 'lacking an egg'. It means 'on its own'.

Semantics.:roll: It still doesn't become a human, whether it's in a group of sperm cells or all by its lonely self.

Funky_Llama