Whoa, over night this thread has turned into a sea of longwinded Darth Ender posts. Not even sure where to begin in responded to them, or if I should even bother to respond, given he has already stated that nothing will ever change his mind on the subject. I find close minded debate kind of boring. You already know my stance on the subject, and so far I have heard every point you made at least a few dozen times before.
Warbler said:
CP3S said:
but there are plenty of pro-choice people, myself included, who do admit that a fetus is, scientifically and by definition, a human life form.
if that is what you believe, why do you think people have the right to kill it.
You know the answer, we've had this discussion before.
CP3S said:
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered? I'll never understand it. But you're welcome to try to make me. I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.
Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.
It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment. I am sure you've heard of adoption. It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.
Have you looked into the adoption system? Foster homes and orphanages? Not as ideal of a situation as you'd like to think. End up with some pretty screwed up people from these kinds of places too.
but can you really be certain foster homes and orphanages are worst than death? Also not all babies that are up for adoption end up in foster homes and/or orphanages. Some people find the adoptive parents before the baby is born. Then the baby goes directly from the natural mother to the adoptive parents. I don't think that is so bad.
No, I can't be sure of that. I am not saying kill any kid we thing is going to have a hard life. I am saying that if a woman gets pregnant and wants to destroy her child before it is sentient, why should we stop her? So we can have one more abused or neglected child in the world?
CP3S said:
And the repercussions of child bearing don't disappear after the ninth month... Not even necessarily nine months after that.
I could be wrong, but I think mothers usually recover quickly from birth if they take care of themselves.
That depends. Some of the signs of pregnancy linger for quite some time.
CP3S said:
again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive. You are playing God.
I'm not playing God. No one is playing God. We are talking about an unborn person who requires living inside your body in order to stay alive. There are a lot of things a pregnant woman can do to her body to screw up and potentially kill the baby inside her. How is that playing God?
I am not sure what else you call it went you decide that someone is better off death than alive and therefore its ok to kill that person.
I was saying that I am not playing God. I am not choosing who lives and who dies. We are talking about the mother, with this small potential person growing inside her having the choice of whether or not that small tiny potential person gets to continue growing inside her.
CP3S said:
Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.And if the mother doesn't want it there? Tough?
and if the child doesn't want to die? though?
Is this child sentient? Because for me, that is really where the hinge of this debate lies.
I am sure it can, but I still don't how a fetus taking nutrients can be compared to a mugging. The fetus isn't even making a conscious choice.
Let's assume I am starving to death. Without food I am going to die. So I help myself into your home and raid your fridge. Much better. But I don't leave. I tell you I am going to stay at your place for 9 months, and that you need to do regular grocery shopping to keep me well fed. The government decides to back me up and support me in this, on account of the fact that I will die without food and have stated that I am going to let myself starve to death if I am removed from Warb's home.
Still not a perfect analogy...
I am not sure what else you call killing a human being.tell me, does the KKK have a right to say that killing black people isn't murder? nope. that's also cause we say so.
Going by dictionary definitions here, mate. According to Oxford and Webster, murder is an illegal killing. If I were a KKK klansmen and made the statement that it isn't illegal to kill an African America (shit! why do we always find ourselves back on the subject of race!), it doesn't change the laws and make it any less illegal. It would still be murder. Since abortion is legal, killing a fetus during the period that it is legal to do so, is not murder.
Not because anyone said so, but because words have meaning and so do laws.
CP3S said:
You sure about that?
so now you want infer that I am sexist just because I a pro-abortion?
I am not having this discussion. This is ridiculous. I never said anything to infer or suggest that you are sexist.
to answer your question: yes I am 200% certain I have no desire to control women. All I want to do preserve life once it already exists. That you would infer I am a sexist and that I want to control women, angers me.
I didn't infer that. But making abortion illegal would be controlling women, it would be telling women that if they get pregnant, they'll just have to deal.
As for defending abortion even if it is human life: If the fetus is human with the same rights as you and I? how is killing it any different than killing it once its outside the womb? If a mother gave birth to a baby, and then decided that since she really didn't want it. She thought adoption is so terrible and the baby will be better off dead than alive, so she kills it. We call that murder, right? Why should it be different for a human still inside the womb?
We would call that murder. Again, the debate should be about sentience and viability. At that point the child is sentient beyond a doubt, and is viable and can survive without the mother. Killing it at this point would be senseless.
That is a good argument against late term abortion as well.
Warbler said:
CP3S said:
twister111 said:
However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?
a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.
This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above.
I am sure many women who are pro-life and have had babies, also make the same argument.
And I am sure many women who are pro-choice and have had babies make the same argument as me. The only point I was making there was that they are certainly more qualified to do so than you or me.
.
C3PS, I admitted I would be long-winded beforehand, and I also admitted that I would not change my mind. Humorous you would call it a close-minded debate, as I've yet to see you change your mind in any of your arguments. This was meant to be a debate thread (see the title), and I doubt you or your colleagues are being any more open-minded to the opposite point of view. You're always quite welcome to not respond if you feel you've read them too many times before. I've read your point of view plenty as well, whether typed by your own fingers or someone who thinks just like you. But if you don't have the nerve to try to respond to what appears to be a minority opinion here, then go exercise your First Amendment rights somewhere else instead of simply making a mockery of your debating opponent.
darth_ender said:
C3PS, I admitted I would be long-winded beforehand, and I also admitted that I would not change my mind. Humorous you would call it a close-minded debate, as I've yet to see you change your mind in any of your arguments.
Argue better and I might. ;)
I guess you didn't get the point that I was talking about both sides here?
I just don't have time to read and refute longwinded versions of arguments I have heard many times before, there is really no point in it.
This was meant to be a debate thread (see the title), and I doubt you or your colleagues are being any more open-minded to the opposite point of view.
I actually do hold a good deal of open-mindedness in any discussion I take part in. We are really treading on the most basic of ground in this debate, this stuff is barely skimming the surface of the issue, and yet we can knock out thousands of words trying to make our point. As it is, we are mostly just argument morality. You with a strong faith in a higher being at the core of your points, and me without certainty in anything but the necessity to be decent to our fellow man.
You're always quite welcome to not respond if you feel you've read them too many times before. I've read your point of view plenty as well, whether typed by your own fingers or someone who thinks just like you. But if you don't have the nerve to try to respond to what appears to be a minority opinion here, then go exercise your First Amendment rights somewhere else instead of simply making a mockery of your debating opponent.
I keep forgetting you are a moderator now. Sorry for breaking your rules.
Not sure how you think I made a mockery of my debating opponent? Wasn't my intention.
Not trying to be a moderator, and I simply tend to be long-winded. I created this thread with the suspicion that I would single-handedly defend my point, not expecting Warbler or anyone to come to the rescue. If several different points are raised, I feel compelled to address them all. I understand this is basic, and I'm not trying to be a moderator. But in case you couldn't tell *sarcasm*, I feel very passionately about this issue and felt that you simply were belittling the time and emotion I put into writing this. If my arguments are simplistic, then shut them down, but please don't simply say that my points aren't worth your response, as that is both insulting to me as well as among the most common and ignorant of debate tactics, since the one using it never actually has to address the point.
See, I don't have a talent for being concise.
twister111 said:
That aside that homeless person is still a person. Whom pro-life advocates would fight to keep alive at the point in time when they're a fetus. Yet when born, and as many children do, grown up. It's wrong to do something illegal to ensure survival because there are choices.
yeah, if there are ways to avoid staving to death other than stealing, it would be wrong. However if there were no other option I don't know that it would be wrong, in that case, to steal.
twister111 said:
The point is, that starving person is still a person who's doing something to try to survive. A fetus has a village of pro-life people fighting for it to be born at all cost. Once born that village turns a blind eye "nope it's your life now. Someone else take care of it."
perhaps, but if someone tried to murder it once it was born, those same prfo-life people would be fighting that too . . . and so would the pro choice people.
twister111 said:
Warbler said:
twister111 said:
The quality of health for that person is a lot better aborting early. Hypothetically you hear a story on the news where a Woman had to get 20 stitches, or another story with a huge cut across her abdomen. Then you hear that she could've avoided such injury. It's hard not to instantly jump to the thought of "well why didn't you stop that?!" Isn't it? Even though you know I'm talking about a baby being born.
your last sentence already answered your question as why you didn't stop that.
So you'd want someone to have possibly hard to pay medical expenses, injuries, irreversible changes to their body, and needed time to recover against her will? Just so your choice to be pro-life is appeased to, and there's another life on this planet that still needs to be taken care of well after birth.
its either do all that stuff against the mother's will or kill the kid against the kid's will.
twister111 said:
Warbler said:
twister111 said:
I've only scratched the surface here. There's also the quality of life for the child after it's born, coming into the world unwanted already
again, when you talk about deciding whether the kid is better dead than alive, you are playing God. Also remember as for being unwanted, there is always adoption.Adoption does not, and will never solve the problem of a child coming into the world unwanted already.
never said it would. the point is, with option of adoption open, you can't not say that pro life people are trying force a 20 year obligation on anyone.
twister111 said:
There's a tv cliche of the mother who gives a kid up for adoption, but she actually wanted the kid. Just wasn't the right time to raise it for her. Nice and rosy for tv. Where real life is concerned she just might not have wanted the kid. Kids don't always get adopted even if they're put in the system. Even if they are. They could be adopted because they tried to have a kid but failed. Then, hey, they suddenly manage to get a kid. Suddenly they pay more attention to their "real" kid. An adopted kid could spend his/her entire life wondering "why didn't my biological parents want me?" Of course there's always a possibility they could have a good life, but it doesn't automatically mean adoption is some magic good life assurance system
true, kids up for adoption can still have a bad life, but is death really preferable? Does anyone have the right to make that choice for anyone else?
twister111 said:
I'm not playing God. I'm looking at this subject from all the possibilities I can imagine, or heard of happening. I see a picture that isn't always bright and cheerful.
you are playing God. You are deciding for another person that there better dead than alive and therefore its ok to kill them.
twister111 said:
Warbler said:
CP3S said:
There are fates worse than death, to use a cliche.
perhaps there are, but do you want others deciding that for you? Do you want others deciding for you when your fate is worse than death and therefore deciding to do away with you? I say we can't play god. If we have to choose for another person, I we should assume life is always preferable to death. The only person who should have the right to decide if death is preferable to life for a individual is the individual themselves.
Yet you feel confident in your decision to determine for someone else in this situation. "Playing God" isn't just a phrase exclusive to deciding someone's death. Your just as much "playing God" by saying that those people should be born
A decision has to be made either way cause we can't really consult the fetus.
1. I think it is safe to assume that most fetuses want to live.
2. if we have to risk erring, I rather let a kid live that would be better off dead than kill a kid that is better off alive.
twister111 said:
Warbler said:
theprequelsrule said:
I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men.
I don't wish to be rude but that is bs. I have no desire to "keep women under the control men". Also remember many people opposed to abortion are women themselves.
Well it's not exactly easy to be a woman who doesn't want kids. Everything in society, in terms of parenting, is built up to make a woman feel bad if they don't want kids
so let me get this straight you think many or most or some or whatever of the women whom oppose abortion, have been brainwashed by society?
btw, I would never want make a woman feel bad for not wanting children. they are a big and difficult and constant responsibility. I am not sure I ever want kids.
twister111 said:
Some birth control ads have the woman portrayed with 2 or 3 kids already. With the implication that should you want more kids you can stop the treatments. It's a huge amount of pressure for women to have kids.
many it once was. I don't think there is all that much pressure in today's world.
darth_ender said:
Consequences to your actions? Whose actions? I think the only people who made a choice here are the parents who had sexual intercourse. Who is so stupid that they don't know that sex leads to babies? Mom and Dad made the choice, not the child. Don't you think that they should be the ones to face consequences for their actions?
So are you against birth control too?
not me. I have no objection to trying to lower the risks of getting pregnant while having sex.
Even if you use birth control it's not always 100%
yes that is why people should always be aware that there are risks even when having "safe sex"
Still are you against heterosexual sex unless the couple in question wants a kid at that moment?
not exactly, but sex may not be wise if you do not want kids. You have to realize you are playing Russian roulette when you have sex.
Is masturbation by a guy reckless abandonment in your eyes because the sperm could not get to an egg? Simply put a bunch of cells that could one day be a baby if left to grow are a lot different from someone who already sustains themselves on their own blood system. I mean guys don't save sperm after every ejaculation, drive to the sperm bank, and make a deposit to ensure it's survival. That's a lot easier then a woman carrying a kid to term. Forget hypothetical situations where guys could carry a kid to term. Guys could do this for every ejaculation if they felt so strongly that potential life of a few cells is so important.
It's not a light decision to make but, I feel it should at least be an option. Taking that option away, is like making it law that every time a guy masturbates he must save it to make a deposit in a sperm bank.
a sperm cell is not the same as fetus. sperm is not human life. I am not 100% certain when human life begins, but I am 100% it doesn't happen before the sperm cell combines with the egg cell.
CP3S said:
.
I wonder what CP3S originally said here.
It isn't an ignorant debating tactic, sorry you feel that way.
I appreciate your passion on this topic, I assure you, when I was younger I was making most of the same points you are now, I've not only heard your point of view, but more or less held it. Since then I have seen and dealt with a lot of crap that has swayed me.
Just because I support it, doesn't mean I find it pleasant or ideal.
Warbler said:
CP3S said:
.
I wonder what CP3S originally said here.
Double post. Merged it into one. All these double, triple, and quadruple posts are making my head hurt. Nothing was removed.
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
C3PS, I admitted I would be long-winded beforehand, and I also admitted that I would not change my mind. Humorous you would call it a close-minded debate, as I've yet to see you change your mind in any of your arguments.
Argue better and I might. ;)
I am skeptical of this. I've argued with you many, many times. I've put together the best arguments I could. I don't think I've changed your mind on one issue at all.
That is not to say that it is easy to change my mind either.
CP3S said:
I just don't have time to read and refute longwinded versions of arguments I have heard many times before, there is really no point in it.
well, if you feel that way, feel free to do something else with your time.
This was meant to be a debate thread (see the title), and I doubt you or your colleagues are being any more open-minded to the opposite point of view.
I actually do hold a good deal of open-mindedness in any discussion I take part in. We are really treading on the most basic of ground in this debate, this stuff is barely skimming the surface of the issue, and yet we can knock out thousands of words trying to make our point. As it is, we are mostly just argument morality. You with a strong faith in a higher being at the core of your points, and me without certainty in anything but the necessity to be decent to our fellow man.
which is true with many of our debates in the political thread.
C3PS said:
Whoa, over night this thread has turned into a sea of longwinded Darth Ender posts. Not even sure where to begin in responded to them, or if I should even bother to respond, given he has already stated that nothing will ever change his mind on the subject
You don't feel it is ignorant to attack the debater rather than the debate point? To me, the above quote sounds like that is what you are doing. To be fair to you, I also thought you were referring to me alone when calling the debate boring and close-minded and that you'd heard my points many times before. If you feel the same applies to all parties, which now I believe you are, I won't feel so offended.
I am passionate on the topic. I don't want to turn into twooffour here, so maybe I'll just step out of this debate for a couple of days. Let me try one last time to be concise, and from there I won't respond for a few days. Let me just say that I believe in a very grey world. Look at my politics arguments on torture, war, and supporting third world dictators. But when it comes to innocent human life, I see no grey area. If it comes between one person's life and the other person's worsened health and inconvenience, I choose the life.
And I'm sorry to do this, but I have to pre-empt any argument on the dictators who kill or justified war. If I believe that the end result will save more innocent lives in the long run, I feel that the ends may unfortunately justify the means.
Peace.
darth_ender said:
C3PS said:
Whoa, over night this thread has turned into a sea of longwinded Darth Ender posts. Not even sure where to begin in responded to them, or if I should even bother to respond, given he has already stated that nothing will ever change his mind on the subject
You don't feel it is ignorant to attack the debater rather than the debate point? To me, the above quote sounds like that is what you are doing.
That was an attack?! Look, I get 25 posts on page one of this topic, 10 of those posts are yours; and the majority of them are really long. Reading them all is a time investment of its own, I don't even want to think about replying to them all. I was merely stating that given that, along with the fact that you already warned that you are locked in your views on this one, that I wasn't going to even bother to try.
But since I am kind of tired of wasting time on this... Yep! I super ignorant debator. No know what I say. Forgive.
To be fair to you, I also thought you were referring to me alone when calling the debate boring and close-minded and that you'd heard my points many times before. If you feel the same applies to all parties, which now I believe you are, I won't feel so offended.
Be as much or as little offended as you like, it really doesn't bother me.
I agree with ender that a fetus is a human life (it's scientific fact, but is worth noting when debating this topic). While a fetus is not a "person" in the legal or even colloquial sense, it will be one absent an intervening event (natural or otherwise).
By way of analogy, imagine a great uncle is in the hospital and declared brain dead. The family gathers by the bed to say goodbye. It is acceptable to pull the plug in such a situation because he is basically considered dead. But imagine if suddenly an eyelid fluttered or a finger moved, should we rush to pull the plug before he potentially and miraculously obtains consciousness? No. We are only pulling the plug because of a near certainty that won't happen. Contrast this with a fetus, which in all great likelihood, will attain consciousness. It does not suddenly become more moral depending on when the human life is killed - though it may seem more palatable.
Abortion is more complicated by the fact that it does have a huge impact on the mother's (woman's) life. And unlike the great uncle, a fetus was not previously conscious or considered a person. Depending on the stage, it might not be more than a bundle of non-specialized cells. There is a qualitative difference. Thus even many of the most pro-life of people will be able to make exceptions for rape and incest - because the fetal life is not exactly considered on par with that of the woman carrying it.
CP3, I always appreciate your forceful arguments. But that it can be easier to end a pregnancy than to raise a child doesn't add up to a whole lot in answering questions about morality or public policy. That there are bad parents or kids who in your judgment would be better off never having been born also doesn't answer any question about morality or public policy.
theprequelsrule, your argument that opposition to abortion is rooted in oppressing women doesn't pass the smell test. It is true that women were oppressed in many ways throughout history - even legally considered property of husbands - and I suppose even a woman's pregnancy could have been used to that end. But that doesn't mean the conception of fetal life as precious and human is rooted in oppression of woman.
You propose:
There is only one question that should be asked when it comes to abortion: should a woman have the final say over the fate of something inside her?
Should we ever ask what that "something" is? Reducing it to such vague and simplistic terms does not clarify the issue.
As conceded, it is not an easy issue. Morally, it is difficult to justify abortion - unless the woman herself will die (and even then we could have a prolonged philosophical debate). If we try to make it a more 'practical' matter in which two lives are at stake (like a hypothetical in which two live are at stake and only one can be saved) and try to balance a woman whose "health is severely at risk" with that of the fetus it's tricky to say when mental health is "severely at risk" for that woman who was raped (I'd hate to try to make that determination).
A fetus is not the same as a person, but it is more than a random clump of cells or a defective kidney. When a woman is raped, it is foolish and harmful to force a woman to abide the result of violence upon her. Allowing abortion in this case may be difficult to justify morally, but public policy should take account of the messy and inconvenient nature of reality. Note, this is different from saying that since reality is messy and inconvenient, we shouldn't make many rules at all.
There is no denying the general right of a person to exercise autonomy over their body. But like all rights - it is not absolute. Pregnancy is a unique condition involving another life. When a woman permits herself to become pregnant she takes on a responsibility. Men also take on a responsibility when they cause a woman to become pregnant (intentionally or not).
So where I end up, is believing that abortion should be discouraged and limited, but not outlawed. I can't formulate a complete and ideal set of laws on the topic, but this is where my views are anchored.
Ultimately, the debate over abortion is probably blown out of proportion. Polls show that 70-80% of people in the US want at least some restrictions on abortion. Yet the debate tends to turn into whether abortion should be entirely legal or entirely outlawed. And despite there being broad agreement that abortion should be restricted (for reasons other than oppressing women, presumably), the country is split about evenly as to whether they consider themselves "pro-choice" or "pro-life." In other words, there are probably people using either label who have practically the same moral and public policy views.
The answer to theprequelsrule's question above best indicates whether one identifies as pro-choice. Just as asking whether a fetus is a precious human life indicates whether one is pro-life. These questions do not dictate policy solutions to difficult problems. I can't turn a blind eye to the fact that a fetus is a human life.
P.S. If you love long-winded posts (and parantheticals) you will love my post.
The blue elephant in the room.
CP3S and Darth_ender, please calm down and make up. I dislike seeing two people I respect on here get upset at each other. I am sure no offense was intended from either of you.
There is nothing to make up about. No offense was ever intended or taken by me.
CP3S said:
CP3S said:
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered? I'll never understand it. But you're welcome to try to make me. I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.
Because we are selfish, and they take a lot of work and get in our way, and each one of them is pretty close to a 20 year investment.
It doesn't have to be a 20 year investment. I am sure you've heard of adoption. It really only needs to be a 9 month investment.
Have you looked into the adoption system? Foster homes and orphanages? Not as ideal of a situation as you'd like to think. End up with some pretty screwed up people from these kinds of places too.
but can you really be certain foster homes and orphanages are worst than death? Also not all babies that are up for adoption end up in foster homes and/or orphanages. Some people find the adoptive parents before the baby is born. Then the baby goes directly from the natural mother to the adoptive parents. I don't think that is so bad.
No, I can't be sure of that. I am not saying kill any kid we thing is going to have a hard life. I am saying that if a woman gets pregnant and wants to destroy her child before it is sentient, why should we stop her? So we can have one more abused or neglected child in the world?
no, it is because that child has the right to live and no one, not even the mother, has the right to say "this child will be better off dead, so I'll kill it".
on another note, you mentioned sentience. So, at what point does the child become sentient? Why do you pick that time? If sentience happens before birth, are you saying all your arguments that the child might be better off dead than alive, don't apply at the point the child becomes sentient?
CP3S said:
CP3S said:
And the repercussions of child bearing don't disappear after the ninth month... Not even necessarily nine months after that.
I could be wrong, but I think mothers usually recover quickly from birth if they take care of themselves.
That depends. Some of the signs of pregnancy linger for quite some time.
well, I am not a doctor so I do not know how often the signs linger or for how long. But I think I am safe in assuming the usually mothers recover quickly.
CP3S said:
CP3S said:
again, you are deciding for the child, that the child is better off dead than alive. You are playing God.
I'm not playing God. No one is playing God. We are talking about an unborn person who requires living inside your body in order to stay alive. There are a lot of things a pregnant woman can do to her body to screw up and potentially kill the baby inside her. How is that playing God?
I am not sure what else you call it went you decide that someone is better off death than alive and therefore its ok to kill that person.
I was saying that I am not playing God. I am not choosing who lives and who dies. We are talking about the mother, with this small potential person growing inside her having the choice of whether or not that small tiny potential person gets to continue growing inside her.
So you think the mother should have the right to play God. I don't think anyone should play god.
CP3S said:
CP3S said:
Until we do, I think it preferable that the fetus remain inside the mother until born.And if the mother doesn't want it there? Tough?
and if the child doesn't want to die? though?
Is this child sentient? Because for me, that is really where the hinge of this debate lies.
read what I wrote above about you mentioning sentience.
CP3S said:
I am sure it can, but I still don't how a fetus taking nutrients can be compared to a mugging. The fetus isn't even making a conscious choice.
Let's assume I am starving to death. Without food I am going to die. So I help myself into your home and raid your fridge. Much better. But I don't leave. I tell you I am going to stay at your place for 9 months, and that you need to do regular grocery shopping to keep me well fed. The government decides to back me up and support me in this, on account of the fact that I will die without food and have stated that I am going to let myself starve to death if I am removed from Warb's home.
Still not a perfect analogy...
no it is not a perfect analogy.
1. you can be forcefully removed from my house without needing to kill you.
2. you can be force fed if necessary in jail.
3. you'd be making a conscious decision to starve yourself to death, the fetus is making no such decision
4. if I just took a gun and shot you, instead of calling the cops to have you removed, I'd be guilty of murder, wouldn't I?
CP3S said:
I am not sure what else you call killing a human being.tell me, does the KKK have a right to say that killing black people isn't murder? nope. that's also cause we say so.
Going by dictionary definitions here, mate. According to Oxford and Webster, murder is an illegal killing. If I were a KKK klansmen and made the statement that it isn't illegal to kill an African America (shit! why do we always find ourselves back on the subject of race!), it doesn't change the laws and make it any less illegal. It would still be murder. Since abortion is legal, killing a fetus during the period that it is legal to do so, is not murder.
so by that logic, the nazis didn't murder 6 million jews. Their killings were legal in Germany at the time. But I'd bet you still consider the holocaust as murder, am I right?
CP3S said:
Not because anyone said so, but because words have meaning and so do laws.
laws can be changed, including the ones on abortion.
CP3S said:
CP3S said:
You sure about that?
so now you want infer that I am sexist just because I a pro-abortion?
I am not having this discussion. This is ridiculous. I never said anything to infer or suggest that you are sexist.
really? it sure looked that way to me. let us look at the original quotes
CP3S said:
theprequelsrule said:
I feel that the opposition to abortion, from the ancient world to today, is based on keeping women under control of men.
I don't wish to be rude but that is bs. I have no desire to "keep women under the control men".
You sure about that? Again, when you make your pro-life statements, make sure you take into consideration the fact that you are opposing the right to a choice you'll never have to make by any kind of stretch of the imagination. You're opposing the right of other people to a choice you'll never be faced with.
As you can see, I said I no desire to keep women under the control of men. and you asked "are you sure of that?" that infers that maybe I do want to keep women under the control of men and therefore infers that I am a sexist.
CP3S said:
to answer your question: yes I am 200% certain I have no desire to control women. All I want to do preserve life once it already exists. That you would infer I am a sexist and that I want to control women, angers me.
I didn't infer that. But making abortion illegal would be controlling women, it would be telling women that if they get pregnant, they'll just have to deal.
so you prefer telling the fetus that if it does want to die, it will just have to deal?
CP3S said:
As for defending abortion even if it is human life: If the fetus is human with the same rights as you and I? how is killing it any different than killing it once its outside the womb? If a mother gave birth to a baby, and then decided that since she really didn't want it. She thought adoption is so terrible and the baby will be better off dead than alive, so she kills it. We call that murder, right? Why should it be different for a human still inside the womb?
We would call that murder. Again, the debate should be about sentience and viability. At that point the child is sentient beyond a doubt, and is viable and can survive without the mother. Killing it at this point would be senseless.
That is a good argument against late term abortion as well.
I might comment on this, once you comment my questions about sentience above.
CP3S said:
Warbler said:
CP3S said:
twister111 said:
However if a woman doesn't want a kid for various reasons why force her to go through all that? Yes a life will be lost, but shouldn't she have the right to self defence?
a fetus taking nutrients isn't what I'd call an attack needing to be defended from.
This is typically the problem with the abortion debate. It is usually carried out by guys who are quick to brush it off and make comments like the above.
I am sure many women who are pro-life and have had babies, also make the same argument.
And I am sure many women who are pro-choice and have had babies make the same argument as me. The only point I was making there was that they are certainly more qualified to do so than you or me.
I guess going through a pregnancy would make one better understand exactly what it is we are talking about forcing women to do. But I do have questions. Just how is a woman who has never been pregnant better qualified to talk about abortions than I? Does the fact that I am a man make me totally unqualified to talk about this? What about a male doctor, who knows all the health aspects regarding pregnancies? Is he less qualified to talk about abortions than a woman who has never been pregnant and has no medical education?
CP3S said:
There is nothing to make up about. No offense was ever intended or taken by me.
well, it sounded like the two of you were upset at each other.
I didn't mean to actually fulfill the first stated name of this thread. I sent a PM. Hope he accepts my apology. Nevertheless, I don't want to aggravate the issue for at least a couple of days. I'm always cognizant of twooffour's example: he was so determined to prove his point that he would be long-winded (my problem as well) and utilize ad hominem attacks. I don't want to turn into that. I respect CP3S and don't want anything further between us. I felt my points were well made, but either way, I simply need to step away and allow others not caught in the emotion of the moment to address the issue. Thanks for your concern, Warbler. I respect you as well.
I like your post, mrebo, BTW. Very eloquently put, as always.
Mrebo said:
By way of analogy, imagine a great uncle is in the hospital and declared brain dead. The family gathers by the bed to say goodbye. It is acceptable to pull the plug in such a situation because he is basically considered dead. But imagine if suddenly an eyelid fluttered or a finger moved, should we rush to pull the plug before he potentially and miraculously obtains consciousness? No. We are only pulling the plug because of a near certainty that won't happen.
if the uncle is truly brain dead, there is no way his eyelids will flutter. brain dead is dead.
one thing to remember about this analogy, is that the uncle, when he was healthy may have written a paper with instructions about what he wants done should he end up in this situation. The fetus can give no instructions.
edit: I failed to read Mrebo's link before making this post. A remarkable story. I have to say I am confused. If it is not unusual for a patient to have no detectable brain activity for several hours, why were the docs so sure was was gone that they sent her for organ harvesting? I still believe what I said about "brain dead is dead" to be true. I would argue in this case that even though there was no detectable brain activity for several hours, it doesn't mean she was actually brain dead. I would also argue there is a difference between no detectable brain activity, and no brain activity whatsoever. I have wonder what this woman's life will be like now. I would have to believe having no detectable brain activity for as long as she did, would have to cause some brain damage.
I'm surprised no-one has invoked godwin's law yet...
<span style=“font-weight: bold;”>The Most Handsomest Guy on OT.com</span>
So a woman who is raped should be forced to carry to term?darth_ender said:
But when it comes to innocent human life, I see no grey area. If it comes between one person's life and the other person's worsened health and inconvenience, I choose the life.
darth_ender said:
By the unanimous vote of all twister111s here, I am starting a thread devoted to the debate of abortion.
Those who know my style know I'm generally fairly middle ground and am good at seeing others' perspectives and trying to be accommodating. You will find no such middle ground here. I feel abortion should only be permitted when the mother's health is severely at risk, be it physical or mental, meaning [including] following rape/incest. Even then, I feel it should not be a default decision, but rather a well-thought one. I will never understanding how someone can feel so passionately about women's rights that they feel justified in removing the right to life of another human. Even if I did not believe in God, I could never support this practice. How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered? I'll never understand it. But you're welcome to try to make me. I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.
I'll respond to the above points in a few hours. I just wanted to post this.
A while ago there was a Personhood amendment in Mississippi which would've defined human life starting at the moment of conception. In the case of rape, incest, stroke, ectopic pregnancy, and possible death to the mother it would be illegal to abort the fetus. Furthermore if a miscarriage were to occur it would have to be investigated as a homicide. Treatments that could help the mother, but hurt the fetus, would've been illegal. Thankfully it was rejected, but you see the kind of slippery slope that was almost crossed in the name of "pro-life" right? That could've become law in a state.
Imagine you & your girlfriend are saddened by a miscarriage. You were both pro-life and were excited for the kid. Cops come into your house to investigate things, find some day after pills left over from your girlfriend's sister when it was legal to have those. Suddenly your girlfriend is in prison for murder even though you were both pro-life. If that "Personhood amendment" became a law something like that could've happened.
http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link
Diary of an Unborn Baby by Lil' Markie (if you'd like a soundtrack for this thread)
http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/0510/markie/02_-_Lil_Markie_-_Diary_Of_An_Unborn_Child.mp3
Seems like your two statements are at odds, then.darth_ender said:
darth_ender said:
By the unanimous vote of all twister111s here, I am starting a thread devoted to the debate of abortion.
Those who know my style know I'm generally fairly middle ground and am good at seeing others' perspectives and trying to be accommodating. You will find no such middle ground here. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">I feel abortion should only be permitted when the mother's health is severely at risk, be it physical or mental, meaning [including] following rape/incest.</span> Even then, I feel it should not be a default decision, but rather a well-thought one. I will never understanding how someone can feel so passionately about women's rights that they feel justified in removing the right to life of another human. Even if I did not believe in God, I could never support this practice. How can we protect the lives of endangered animals and plants, yet treat unborn human life as trivial because we are not endangered? I'll never understand it. But you're welcome to try to make me. I'm ready to be outnumbered, but I assure you I am will not cop out on this topic.
What the fuck, none? Go away.
