Abortion ****

[QUOTE="re_up"]fetuses from abortion are eaten in China, which is why i hate China, among other thingsFunky_Llama

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

I really doubt human fetuses are eaten, probably an urban legend. And I think to hate China as a society is pretty bad. You should say that you dislike their government and policies unless you are a racist(which is bad).

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

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?"

Exactly. You were accusing me of distinguishing on the basis of looks. I wasn't referring to visualdifferences.

: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.

Try actually counterarguing instead of boasting. ;)

1. Irrelevant.

:lol: No.

...Why? :|

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.

:roll: What's your point? Everyone considers some things to be less than human. Plants, for example. We all draw the line somewhere.

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.

I never said they were the same thing, and whether they are is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the same principle applies, which it does.

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.

I don't see what you're trying to say. You can't reasonably deny that a sperm cell can't become human, if that's what you're doing (there's my insurance against accusations of a straw man).

Theokhoth

: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:

Mr. "Christians are trying to take over the world."Theokhoth

Biologically speaking, it is not a truly parasitic thing. Philosophically speaking, it sure can be considered as one.

Christians are trying to take over the world and make it so that everyone thinks in the same way that they do. It certainly is not a personal and quiet religion. If you can't see that right away, there's no point in me developping on that.

Also, you have conveniently skipped this:

"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.)"

That isn't surprising, though, as this paragraph asks you to actually clearly define the concepts that you're using instead of just yelling "IT'S HUMAN TO ME, DAMMIT, SO DON'T KILL IT!" ^_^

no ones (not even a babies) life is worth more than another's.dnumba1man

So you'd give your life for a cluster of unthinking, unconscious cells?

I believe that murder is never right or wrongdnumba1man

A moral nihilist, I assume? Haven't seen that in a while.

What bussiness of mine is it, what someone else does to their body?eggdog1234

Pro-lifers would say that it's what they do to the foetus, not their own body. And I'm inclined to agree with them.

I say its up to the person i dont think people should be able to decide what they should do with it if they want to have it done by all means go ahead.

[QUOTE="eloyc"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]Yea, your so funny....Funky_Llama

I wasn't trying to be. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

Wow, Funky_Llama. This time you've gone too far, pal.

It's not the same a spermatozoid (just a living cell, nothing more) than a human life in formation.

Not for an early-stage embryo. A sperm cell is a potential human life, just as an embryo is.

A spermatozoid alone isn't a potential human life, it's just a cell. A zygote is a far step forward.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="eloyc"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]Yea, your so funny....eloyc

I wasn't trying to be. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

Wow, Funky_Llama. This time you've gone too far, pal.

It's not the same a spermatozoid (just a living cell, nothing more) than a human life in formation.

Not for an early-stage embryo. A sperm cell is a potential human life, just as an embryo is.

A spermatozoid alone isn't a potential human life, it's just a cell. A zygote is a far step forward.

I'm aware it's a far step forward, but both sperm and zygote have the potential to become human life, so my point still stands.

Exactly. You were accusing me of distinguishing on the basis of looks. I wasn't referring to visualdifferences.

More semantics!

Try actually counterarguing instead of boasting. ;)

The burden of proof rests on BOTH SIDES. In an official debate, the one who opens the debate goes first and has to hold his burden of proof. But when he's done, his opponent then has to hold it. It's not a "you have to prove everything while I sit back and deny it" situation like you apparently think it is.

...Why? :|

Explain how it's irrelevant, then.

:roll: What's your point? Everyone considers some things to be less than human. Plants, for example. We all draw the line somewhere.

:| Did you even read my post? Particularly this part: If it has the genes of a human, the potential to be a human, and is a member of the human species. Do plants fall into that category?

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.

I never said they were the same thing, and whether they are is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the same principle applies, which it does.

:| Do you not see your argument here? "Okay, it applies in this case, but it doesn't in this absolutely irrelevant and different case, therefore it doesn't apply at all." That is wrong. It would apply if your cells had the potential to become a human, but since they don't, the principle does not apply to this case. It applies to embryos.

I don't see what you're trying to say. You can't reasonably deny that a sperm cell can't become human, if that's what you're doing (there's my insurance against accusations of a straw man).

You've been denying for about three pages now.:|

Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

: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:

Mr. "Christians are trying to take over the world."ReddestSkies

Biologically speaking, it is not a truly parasitic thing. Philosophically speaking, it sure can be considered as one.

Philosophically speaking, abortion can sure be regarded as murder. See what I did there?

Also, you have conveniently skipped this:

"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.)"

I already have, and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you want to look through the rest of the topic for my responses, be my guest.

I'm aware it's a far step forward, but both sperm and zygote have the potential to become human life, so my point still stands.Funky_Llama

But, man, a spermatozoid alone won't ever be a human life. A zygote will. :(

I'm aware it's a far step forward, but both sperm and zygote have the potential to become human life, so my point still stands.

Funky_Llama

A sperm DOES NOT have the potential to become a human! Don't you get it? When a sperm mixes with an egg it ceases to be a sperm! A sperm lives its life and dies in the testicles; nothing more, nothing less, UNLESS it mixes with an egg, in which case the sperm/egg become a human embryo, and thus is no longer a sperm, and thus sperm has no potential to be a human, thus your argument is invalid.

The one thing I will say is the labeling, if only on face vaule, for this stuff is silly as hell. For example, the idea of "pro-choice," in contrast to "pro-life," automatically assumes that the entire idea of it is going against life. That is not necessarily the case. Some people who go under that particular label, believe it or not, do not believe we are talking about case of life.

In all honesty," what is the problem with "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion"? Not only does it make more logicial sense, it is lot more self-explanatory, unlike the current labeling.

The one thing I will say is the labeling, if only on face vaule, for this stuff is silly as hell. For example, the idea of "pro-choice," in contrast to "pro-life," automatically assumes that the entire idea of it is going against life. That is not necessarily the case. Some people who go under that particular label, believe it or not, do not believe we are talking about case of life.

In all honesty," what is the problem with "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion"? Not only does it make more logicial sense, it is lot more self-explanatory, unlike the current labeling.

Link256

On the flip side, "pro-choice" gives the impression that pro-lifers are against human rights. No, we're just against the choice of killing other people.

Also, you have conveniently skipped this:

"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.)"

I already have, and I'm tired of repeating myself. If you want to look through the rest of the topic for my responses, be my guest.

Theokhoth

Actually you haven't. That's just another one of your tricks to divert from the fact that you just completely fail at defending your views. Step one: ignore the concept which puts a gigantic hole in your already terribly weak argumentation. Step two: say that you've already answered it, and that I should read the thread. Step three: you have to go, can't discuss anymore. ^_-

So, what's the "human right to life", and why do we have it while plants don't? (Hint: you can't just say "lol genetics!")

Pretty much your opinion is that you're okay with murder if that person causes an inconvenience.SuperVegeta518

I wouldn't exactly call a fetus a person. And I wouldn't abort after a certain amount of weeks.

[QUOTE="eloyc"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="eloyc"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]Yea, your so funny....Funky_Llama

I wasn't trying to be. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

Wow, Funky_Llama. This time you've gone too far, pal.

It's not the same a spermatozoid (just a living cell, nothing more) than a human life in formation.

Not for an early-stage embryo. A sperm cell is a potential human life, just as an embryo is.

A spermatozoid alone isn't a potential human life, it's just a cell. A zygote is a far step forward.

I'm aware it's a far step forward, but both sperm and zygote have the potential to become human life, so my point still stands.

Actually you haven't. That's just another one of your tricks to divert from the fact that you just completely fail at defending your views. Step one: ignore the concept which puts a gigantic hole in your already terribly weak argumentation. Step two: say that you've already answered it, and that I should read the thread. Step three: you have to go, can't discuss anymore. ^_-

So, what's the "human right to life", and why do we have it while plants don't? (Hint: you can't just say "lol genetics!")

ReddestSkies

:roll: Yes, I have. You and your conspiracy theories.

The human right to life is a fundamental, God-given right extended to all humans, and may not be denied by any other human. We have it because we are human. Plants don't have it because they are not human. In addition it is a part of the human right to life to extend that life by way of eating, and since humans are omnivorous, we eat plants.

Got it now? I'm not repeating myself again.

[QUOTE="SuperVegeta518"]Pretty much your opinion is that you're okay with murder if that person causes an inconvenience.tofu-lion91

I wouldn't exactly call a fetus a person. And I wouldn't abort after a certain amount of weeks.

I love the way "pro-lifers" don't care about the "life" once its born. I also love when "pro-lifers" kill other people.eggdog1234

I love the way "pro-choicers" don't give a crap about the father's choice, the doctor's choice, or the baby's choice when it comes to abortion. I also love the way "pro-choicers" accuse pro-lifers of not caring about life after birth, and I especially love "pro-choicers" accusing pro-lfers of killing other people.:roll:

See? I can make up bullcrap too!

Oh, wait. . . .

I love the way "pro-lifers" don't care about the "life" once its born. I also love when "pro-lifers" kill other people.eggdog1234

[QUOTE="eggdog1234"]I love the way "pro-lifers" don't care about the "life" once its born. I also love when "pro-lifers" kill other people.Theokhoth

I love the way "pro-choicers" don't give a crap about the father's choice, the doctor's choice, or the baby's choice when it comes to abortion. I also love the way "pro-choicers" accuse pro-lifers of not caring about life after born, and I especially love "pro-choicers" accuse pro-lfers of killing other people.:roll:

See? I can make up bullcrap too!

Oh, wait. . . .

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Actually you haven't. That's just another one of your tricks to divert from the fact that you just completely fail at defending your views. Step one: ignore the concept which puts a gigantic hole in your already terribly weak argumentation. Step two: say that you've already answered it, and that I should read the thread. Step three: you have to go, can't discuss anymore. ^_-

So, what's the "human right to life", and why do we have it while plants don't? (Hint: you can't just say "lol genetics!")

Theokhoth

:roll: Yes, I have. You and your conspiracy theories.

The human right to life is a fundamental, God-given right extended to all humans, and may not be denied by any other human. We have it because we are human. Plants don't have it because they are not human. In addition it is a part of the human right to life to extend that life by way of eating, and since humans are omnivorous, we eat plants.

Got it now? I'm not repeating myself again.

And now you can try that again, except that you should actually use some kind of reasoning this time around. I thought that I made it clear that I was asking for an actual explanation of why human beings are more deserving to live than plants, and not just random genetical prejudice. The right to life is not a magical fact that came down from the heavens; there actually is reasoning behind it.

An obvious example of why that definition is insanely bad (except for the fact that it uses "God-given", which implies that your god thinks that you're special while all of his other creations can drop dead for all he cares): if we encounter a sentient alien species, and it could be even more mentally and physically advanced than us, performing genocide on it for the sake of it would not be morally bad.

If you don't use protection, i'm sorry, i don't care about your "rights".

Stumpt25

Stopped reading there.

I really don't care about when babies are alive or when they are dead, the mother should have the choice of when to get it out of her body.

I love the way "pro-lifers" don't care about the "life" once its born. I also love when "pro-lifers" kill other people.eggdog1234

And now you can try that again, except that you should actually use some kind of reasoning this time around. I thought that I made it clear that I was asking for an actual explanation of why human beings are more deserving to live than plants, and not just random genetical prejudice. The right to life is not a magical fact that came down from the heavens, there actually is reasoning behind it.

An obvious example of why that definition is insanely bad: if we encounter a sentient alien species, and it could be even more mentally and physically advanced than us, performing genocide on it for the sake of it would not be morally bad.

ReddestSkies

All right, then YOU tell me, what makes the right to life reasonable? If it's not because we are humans, then why do we have the right? Shall we abolish it because it's not reasonable?

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]

[QUOTE="SuperVegeta518"]Pretty much your opinion is that you're okay with murder if that person causes an inconvenience.SuperVegeta518

I wouldn't exactly call a fetus a person. And I wouldn't abort after a certain amount of weeks.

Because it's a fetus :| It doesn't breathe or think. It isn't concious. Anyways I'm not saying killing babies is great or even right, I just stand for choice that's all.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="eloyc"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="eloyc"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]Yea, your so funny....SuperVegeta518

I wasn't trying to be. It's a reductio ad absurdum.

Wow, Funky_Llama. This time you've gone too far, pal.

It's not the same a spermatozoid (just a living cell, nothing more) than a human life in formation.

Not for an early-stage embryo. A sperm cell is a potential human life, just as an embryo is.

A spermatozoid alone isn't a potential human life, it's just a cell. A zygote is a far step forward.

I'm aware it's a far step forward, but both sperm and zygote have the potential to become human life, so my point still stands.

I was playing devil's advocate. My argument there was similar to yours - I was saying that sperm may as well be considered human life if an embryo is.

Its amazing that people still have this discussion. A lot of you guys to have agree to disagree because all in all thats what it has to come down too. I do believe though that if a women decides to do this it should be up to her and no one else, especially not up for the court of public opinion. I don't believe it is anybodies right to tell what a women can and can't do with her body. I don't believe it should be used for an option of birth control, but should be an available option.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

And now you can try that again, except that you should actually use some kind of reasoning this time around. I thought that I made it clear that I was asking for an actual explanation of why human beings are more deserving to live than plants, and not just random genetical prejudice. The right to life is not a magical fact that came down from the heavens, there actually is reasoning behind it.

An obvious example of why that definition is insanely bad: if we encounter a sentient alien species, and it could be even more mentally and physically advanced than us, performing genocide on it for the sake of it would not be morally bad.

Theokhoth

All right, then YOU tell me, what makes the right to life reasonable? If it's not because we are humans, then why do we have the right? Shall we abolish it because it's not reasonable?

The right to life or humans rights as you say are giving to humans because we can think and communicate. We can make logicial decsions on our own and we can live and prosper with society. A fetus on the other hand can't do neither, nor can it think or fend for itself. Its all based on the mother carrying it. If a cow starting talking to people and saying we don't want to be killed anymore for food, I'm sure many people would start wondering if they should have rights as well.

[QUOTE="SuperVegeta518"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]

[QUOTE="SuperVegeta518"]Pretty much your opinion is that you're okay with murder if that person causes an inconvenience.tofu-lion91

I wouldn't exactly call a fetus a person. And I wouldn't abort after a certain amount of weeks.

Because it's a fetus :| It doesn't breathe or think. It isn't concious. Anyways I'm not saying killing babies is great or even right, I just stand for choice that's all.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

And now you can try that again, except that you should actually use some kind of reasoning this time around. I thought that I made it clear that I was asking for an actual explanation of why human beings are more deserving to live than plants, and not just random genetical prejudice. The right to life is not a magical fact that came down from the heavens, there actually is reasoning behind it.

An obvious example of why that definition is insanely bad: if we encounter a sentient alien species, and it could be even more mentally and physically advanced than us, performing genocide on it for the sake of it would not be morally bad.

Theokhoth

All right, then YOU tell me, what makes the right to life reasonable? If it's not because we are humans, then why do we have the right? Shall we abolish it because it's not reasonable?

The right to life, if it is actually valid (because it might not be!), is based on the fact that we are concious, sentient and intelligent beings who actually understand the concepts of "future and past experiences". Unlike animals and plants, we are more than just biological robots acting entirely on instinct (or programming). This is why it would (in all likeliness) be wrong to perform genocide on an intelligent alien species, whereas it is fine to "kill" lumps of human cells.

Its amazing that people still have this discussion. A lot of you guys to have agree to disagree because all in all thats what it has to come down too. I do believe though that if a women decides to do this it should be up to her and no one else, especially not up for the court of public opinion. I don't believe it is anybodies right to tell what a women can and can't do with her body. I don't believe it should be used for an option of birth control, but should be an available option.

xscrapzx

[

The right to life or humans rights as you say are giving to humans because we can think and communicate. We can make logicial decsions on our own and we can live and prosper with society. A fetus on the other hand can't do neither, nor can it think or fend for itself. Its all based on the mother carrying it. If a cow starting talking to people and saying we don't want to be killed anymore for food, I'm sure many people would start wondering if they should have rights as well.

xscrapzx

A baby under the age of two cannot communicate either, nor can it fend for itself. A comatose man or woman or child also fits that definition. There is more to the right to life than that.

Its amazing that people still have this discussion. A lot of you guys to have agree to disagree because all in all thats what it has to come down too. I do believe though that if a women decides to do this it should be up to her and no one else, especially not up for the court of public opinion. I don't believe it is anybodies right to tell what a women can and can't do with her body. I don't believe it should be used for an option of birth control, but should be an available option.

xscrapzx

When a woman is pregnant, it is not just her body.

People stress the rights of a woman but don't care for the rights of the baby growing inside them.

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"][QUOTE="SuperVegeta518"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"]

[QUOTE="SuperVegeta518"]Pretty much your opinion is that you're okay with murder if that person causes an inconvenience.SuperVegeta518

I wouldn't exactly call a fetus a person. And I wouldn't abort after a certain amount of weeks.

Because it's a fetus :| It doesn't breathe or think. It isn't concious. Anyways I'm not saying killing babies is great or even right, I just stand for choice that's all.

I just took a look around and notice that I live on a planet and there are trees that I can touch, flowers I can smell.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Its amazing that people still have this discussion. A lot of you guys to have agree to disagree because all in all thats what it has to come down too. I do believe though that if a women decides to do this it should be up to her and no one else, especially not up for the court of public opinion. I don't believe it is anybodies right to tell what a women can and can't do with her body. I don't believe it should be used for an option of birth control, but should be an available option.

Chutebox

When a woman is pregnant, it is not just her body.

People stress the rights of a woman but don't care for the rights of the baby growing inside them.

Ok until a fetus can talk through an ultrasound and express its feelings for life, I think that point is mute.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Its amazing that people still have this discussion. A lot of you guys to have agree to disagree because all in all thats what it has to come down too. I do believe though that if a women decides to do this it should be up to her and no one else, especially not up for the court of public opinion. I don't believe it is anybodies right to tell what a women can and can't do with her body. I don't believe it should be used for an option of birth control, but should be an available option.

Chutebox

When a woman is pregnant, it is not just her body.

People stress the rights of a woman but don't care for the rights of the baby growing inside them.

You don't have rights until you have a driver license.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Exactly. You were accusing me of distinguishing on the basis of looks. I wasn't referring to visualdifferences.

More semantics!

:lol: Unless you are willing to claim that looking different and being fundamentally different are exactly the same thing, that is not semantics. Fail, yet again. :lol:

Try actually counterarguing instead of boasting. ;)

The burden of proof rests on BOTH SIDES. In an official debate, the one who opens the debate goes first and has to hold his burden of proof. But when he's done, his opponent then has to hold it. It's not a "you have to prove everything while I sit back and deny it" situation like you apparently think it is.

This isn't about the debate in general, it's about your claim that foetuses mustbe considered human lives with the right to life.

...Why? :|

Explain how it's irrelevant, then.

Because the potential to become a baby doesn't mean that foetuses have the right to life.

:roll: What's your point? Everyone considers some things to be less than human. Plants, for example. We all draw the line somewhere.

:| Did you even read my post? Particularly this part: If it has the genes of a human, the potential to be a human, and is a member of the human species. Do plants fall into that category?

I wasn't even responding to that bit, and I already disproved rather pathetic genes argument.

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.

I never said they were the same thing, and whether they are is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the same principle applies, which it does.

:| Do you not see your argument here? "Okay, it applies in this case, but it doesn't in this absolutely irrelevant and different case, therefore it doesn't apply at all." That is wrong. It would apply if your cells had the potential to become a human, but since they don't, the principle does not apply to this case. It applies to embryos.

:roll: It's called reductio ad absurdum...
Why would it only apply in that case?

I don't see what you're trying to say. You can't reasonably deny that a sperm cell can't become human, if that's what you're doing (there's my insurance against accusations of a straw man).

You've been denying for about three pages now.:|

Urk. I don't know why I wrote that. I intended to say that you can't reasonably deny that a sperm cell can become human.

Theokhoth