Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Fornicators should be punished

2456710

Posts

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    Sex of some sort = babies

    No sex of any sort = no babies

    That's nowhere near the same thing as claiming that all pregnancies are "intentional."

    And, since women own and have total control over their bodies, they have the right to use them to have sex and, voila, terminate pregnancies when they're not wanted.

    Being fully human means owning your body.

    I already addressed why this is faulty reasoning. Please scroll up.
    Thanatos wrote: »
    This is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever seen presented on these boards. Seriously. You deserve some sort of "most brain-damaged forumer" award.

    Prove to me that you are not what you described, and find a way to refute the logic rather than resort to name-calling.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    This is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever seen presented on these boards. Seriously. You deserve some sort of "most brain-damaged forumer" award.
    Prove to me that you are not what you described, and find a way to refute the logic rather than resort to name-calling.
    You... you actually don't expect me to be able to refute "babies=nuclear weapons?"

    You really are retarded.

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    I already addressed why this is faulty reasoning. Please scroll up.

    I'm missing it. Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but can you restate your point?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Why are fetuses deserving pf protections? I have yet to see a decent case for this.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    This is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever seen presented on these boards. Seriously. You deserve some sort of "most brain-damaged forumer" award.
    Prove to me that you are not what you described, and find a way to refute the logic rather than resort to name-calling.
    You... you actually don't expect me to be able to refute "babies=nuclear weapons?"

    You really are retarded.

    You are not worth my time.
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    I already addressed why this is faulty reasoning. Please scroll up.

    I'm missing it. Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but can you restate your point?

    Certainly. Murder is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Abortion is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Using an argument such as "It's my body I can do what I want" is subject to comparisons that stretch much further than I'm sure you'd desire, but are nonetheless sound.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    Sex of some sort = babies

    No sex of any sort = no babies

    That's nowhere near the same thing as claiming that all pregnancies are "intentional."

    And, since women own and have total control over their bodies, they have the right to use them to have sex and, voila, terminate pregnancies when they're not wanted.

    Being fully human means owning your body.

    I already addressed why this is faulty reasoning. Please scroll up.
    You can't put an embryo in the "person with rights" camp without adding a whole load of other wierd things as well (cancer for one) however placing an embryo in the "just human tissue" has no real repercussions as far as the whole limiting suffering based morality goes. In short, there is no harm done.

    By which I obviously mean to say that we should abort Liberatarians rather than to drag the thread further off topic.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Why are fetuses deserving pf protections? I have yet to see a decent case for this.

    That, I'll grant, is still up in the air. Yet from my point of view, it seems that the line is being drawn in entirely the wrong place, based more on history and misunderstanding than science.
    Tastyfish wrote: »

    By which I obviously mean to say that we should abort Liberatarians rather than to drag the thread further off topic.

    Right. Sorry. Libertarians are silly!

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    Certainly. Murder is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Abortion is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Using an argument such as "It's my body I can do what I want" is subject to comparisons that stretch much further than I'm sure you'd desire, but are nonetheless sound.

    Well, then here's another crucial component I know you won't like:

    Blastocysts aren't people. Embryos aren't people. Fetuses aren't people.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    This is one of the most retarded arguments I've ever seen presented on these boards. Seriously. You deserve some sort of "most brain-damaged forumer" award.
    Prove to me that you are not what you described, and find a way to refute the logic rather than resort to name-calling.
    You... you actually don't expect me to be able to refute "babies=nuclear weapons?"

    You really are retarded.
    You are not worth my time.
    Please, do not ad hominem, address my point: babies=/=nuclear weapons.
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    I already addressed why this is faulty reasoning. Please scroll up.
    I'm missing it. Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but can you restate your point?
    Certainly. Murder is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Abortion is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Using an argument such as "It's my body I can do what I want" is subject to comparisons that stretch much further than I'm sure you'd desire, but are nonetheless sound.
    "My body, my choice" is shorthand for "I am allowed to make medical decisions which I feel are in the long-term best interest of my health, both physically and psychologically."

    If you're going to be a pedantic, retarded asshole, expect to get called on it.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    Certainly. Murder is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Abortion is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Using an argument such as "It's my body I can do what I want" is subject to comparisons that stretch much further than I'm sure you'd desire, but are nonetheless sound.

    Well, then here's another crucial component I know you won't like:

    Blastocysts aren't people. Embryos aren't people. Fetuses aren't people.

    Libertarians aren't people.

    Is there an abortion thread somewhere that I should be in while I'm in the mood to contemplate and argue my points?

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    Is there an abortion thread somewhere that I should be in while I'm in the mood to contemplate and argue my points?

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=20043

    And thanks to whoever did the spinning-off.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    Certainly. Murder is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Abortion is wrong because it uses our own bodies to harm others. Using an argument such as "It's my body I can do what I want" is subject to comparisons that stretch much further than I'm sure you'd desire, but are nonetheless sound.

    Well, then here's another crucial component I know you won't like:

    Blastocysts aren't people. Embryos aren't people. Fetuses aren't people.

    Fetus is more complicated as it goes all the way up to birth, but the first two definitely can't really be put in the person category.

    I had the best "lets have an abortion thread instead of a libertarian thread" comment as well, dammit

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    YAY it got moved. I was afraid that I'd upset someone and ruined a thread.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Please, do not ad hominem, address my point: babies=/=nuclear weapons.

    The use of my hands to create things or use things that would destroy lives is the same as a woman destroying lives in her body. That was what I meant.
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    "My body, my choice" is shorthand for "I am allowed to make medical decisions which I feel are in the long-term best interest of my health, both physically and psychologically."

    If you're going to be a pedantic, retarded asshole, expect to get called on it.

    If you're going to be a short-sighted illogical unthinking dimwit, expect to be brushed off. ^.^

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I'll put down some points:

    - Blastocysts and embryos obviously aren't people. They're simply nowhere near developed enough to count for personhood; abortions performed at this stage have no science-based ethical issues.

    - Some people (okay, many people) think that full human life begins at conception, and that there's a soul present in blastocysts and embryos. That's fine with me if it's your religious view, but there's no objective way to argue for this so we can't make laws based on this reasoning.

    - Fetuses get a little hairy; after all, there's a "natural" limit of viability outside the womb and it keeps getting earlier and earlier as medical techniques improve. Should we make legal limits on when abortions can occur at this stage to avoid killing full human life? I say no:

    --->First of all, there simply aren't any women out there who carry a pregnancy to term and are only a week or two away from giving birth and suddenly decide to abort. It just doesn't happen. Late-term abortion procedures are performed for reasons of medical necessity: the mother's life or health is in immediate danger, and often the fetus is dead. These late-term procedures must be kept legal so that women's lives and health can be preserved.

    --->If there were women in the latest stages of pregnancy who wanted to end it, wouldn't they just have induced labor instead? (Actual question here.)

  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I don't even think highschoolers should count as people.

    "Maybe we're here to eat the sandwich." -- Joe Rogan
  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    I'll put down some points:

    - Blastocysts and embryos obviously aren't people. They're simply nowhere near developed enough to count for personhood; abortions performed at this stage have no science-based ethical issues.

    - Some people (okay, many people) think that full human life begins at conception, and that there's a soul present in blastocysts and embryos. That's fine with me if it's your religious view, but there's no objective way to argue for this so we can't make laws based on this reasoning.

    - Fetuses get a little hairy; after all, there's a "natural" limit of viability outside the womb and it keeps getting earlier and earlier as medical techniques improve. Should fetuses count as people?

    Good points, and as much as I'd like to say I'm purely pro-life, I can't. I have never seen scientific/medical reports stating that so much as a two-celled organism in the womb is technically alive.

    Yet I firmly believe that before a child comes out of a woman, it has more than enough to constitute it as alive.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    Followup:

    The same goes for "alive".

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Please, do not ad hominem, address my point: babies=/=nuclear weapons.
    The use of my hands to create things or use things that would destroy lives is the same as a woman destroying lives in her body. That was what I meant.
    As soon as a woman wants to have an abortion in order to kill the homeless people squatting in her uterus, that might be a valid comparison.

    Oh, wait, no it wouldn't, because homeless people don't have the destructive power of several thousand tons of dynamite.
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote:
    "My body, my choice" is shorthand for "I am allowed to make medical decisions which I feel are in the long-term best interest of my health, both physically and psychologically."

    If you're going to be a pedantic, retarded asshole, expect to get called on it.
    If you're going to be a short-sighted illogical unthinking dimwit, expect to be brushed off. ^.^
    Yes, that would be my point.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    Followup:

    The same goes for "alive".

    I'd agree, except that I don't consider it "chest-thumping" to state that if a fetus were removed from a woman and could breathe, it's alive. That seems awfully cut and dry to me.

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited April 2007
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    Umm, huh? When I use the word "people" I think of someone who is fully recognized as an individual by society, and who is both subject to and protected by laws.

    It's certainly obvious to me that a glob of cells or an embryo is nowhere near approaching full human status.

    Yes, brain-dead people are still people, but note too that they are also the subject of laws: Terry Schiavo comes to mind. Whether she was alive or not she was still "people," insofar that society recognized her as an individual.

    Blastocysts and embryos aren't individuals.

    Whether or not you're people is at the very heart of this issue! Murder only occurs against persons recognized by society as individuals; if someone chops your arm off in a fight, no one will claim that they "murdered" your arm. Similarly, if organisms in the womb are people, then terminating their existences would count as murder.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    Followup:

    The same goes for "alive".
    I'd agree, except that I don't consider it "chest-thumping" to state that if a fetus were removed from a woman and could breathe, it's alive. That seems awfully cut and dry to me.
    Can breathe on its own, or can breath with a respirator?

    Because you can have a fetus born without a head that you can keep "alive" with modern medical technology, but why would you want to?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    Followup:

    The same goes for "alive".

    I'd agree, except that I don't consider it "chest-thumping" to state that if a fetus were removed from a woman and could breathe, it's alive. That seems awfully cut and dry to me.

    Why should we care if it's "alive"? Is a brain-dead human, kept breathing by machinery "alive"? Does it matter? Why?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Please, do not ad hominem, address my point: babies=/=nuclear weapons.
    The use of my hands to create things or use things that would destroy lives is the same as a woman destroying lives in her body. That was what I meant.
    As soon as a woman wants to have an abortion in order to kill the homeless people squatting in her uterus, that might be a valid comparison.

    Oh, wait, no it wouldn't, because homeless people don't have the destructive power of several thousand tons of dynamite.

    If the argument is reduced to "cost in lives," perhaps we could compare how many abortions have taken place in history versus nuclear weapons? Or even how many abortions will take place this year versus nuking one major city?

    That, however, is not the issue. The reason that I made the comparison was to demonstrate that claims of using our body in desctructive ways being legal and morally just no matter what is not correct.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Terry Schiavo comes to mind. Whether she was alive or not she was still "people," insofar that society recognized her as an individual.

    Blastocysts and embryos aren't individuals.

    I would suggest that many people who felt that Terry Schiavo was an individual also consider fetuses and blastocysts individuls.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited April 2007

    Why should we care if it's "alive"? Is a brain-dead human, kept breathing by machinery "alive"? Does it matter? Why?

    Because parents almost always have strong emotional attachments to their children?

    Look, just because biologically speaking the born-brainless fetus in question never had the capacity for sentience like other human individuals doesn't mean that the parents who looked forward to the infant's arrival didn't conceive of that infant as a person themselves, and they would no doubt have strong feelings about the infant's arrival.



    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Terry Schiavo comes to mind. Whether she was alive or not she was still "people," insofar that society recognized her as an individual.

    Blastocysts and embryos aren't individuals.

    I would suggest that many people who felt that Terry Schiavo was an individual also consider fetuses and blastocysts individuls.

    I'm sure they do, but they're not following my definition. There needs to be a reasonable level of objectivity involved in this sort of thing, hence my reliance above on scientific terms and facts whenever possible.

    As a similar extreme example, I can start mourning for the millions upon millions of people throughout history who will never be born because their parents never meet, but I don't think anyone here would reasonably consider them to be "people" in the sense we're using here.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    Followup:

    The same goes for "alive".

    I'd agree, except that I don't consider it "chest-thumping" to state that if a fetus were removed from a woman and could breathe, it's alive. That seems awfully cut and dry to me.

    Why should we care if it's "alive"? Is a brain-dead human, kept breathing by machinery "alive"? Does it matter? Why?

    (To reply to both who made similar points)

    1. We should care if it's alive because that is what the morality of abortion is about. If a fetus is nothing more than an appendage, it should be controlled and it's fate determined by the mother. I contend that it is more than just an appendage.

    2. I still don't know what to say about fetuses that could be born/removed and kept alive on machines, but not on it's own. You can't keep a rock breathing on life support, nor have I ever heard of corpses being revived years after death and brought to life by connecting machines. Who is to say what is worth saving in general?

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    If the argument is reduced to "cost in lives," perhaps we could compare how many abortions have taken place in history versus nuclear weapons? Or even how many abortions will take place this year versus nuking one major city?

    That, however, is not the issue. The reason that I made the comparison was to demonstrate that claims of using our body in desctructive ways being legal and morally just no matter what is not correct.
    A cluster of cells is not a life. A fetus which has died in utero is not a life. To equate every single abortion as a "lost life" is, at best, an incredibly hyperbolic lie. The vast, vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, so at least 25% of those wouldn't make it, anyway, and given that a lot of them occur because the life/health of the mother is threatened by them (like, say, mothers who have cancer), and they wouldn't make it, anyhow, the number is likely much higher than 25%.

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    1. We should care if it's alive because that is what the morality of abortion is about. If a fetus is nothing more than an appendage, it should be controlled and it's fate determined by the mother. I contend that it is more than just an appendage.

    Please explain why you think this.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    If the argument is reduced to "cost in lives," perhaps we could compare how many abortions have taken place in history versus nuclear weapons? Or even how many abortions will take place this year versus nuking one major city?

    That, however, is not the issue. The reason that I made the comparison was to demonstrate that claims of using our body in desctructive ways being legal and morally just no matter what is not correct.
    A cluster of cells is not a life. A fetus which has died in utero is not a life. To equate every single abortion as a "lost life" is, at best, an incredibly hyperbolic lie. The vast, vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, so at least 25% of those wouldn't make it, anyway, and given that a lot of them occur because the life/health of the mother is threatened by them (like, say, mothers who have cancer), and they wouldn't make it, anyhow, the number is likely much higher than 25%.

    I am still not convinced that an egg that was fertilized one second ago is not a life. I cannot prove that it is, and you cannot prove that it isn't.

    Saying that it is "at best, an incredibly hyperbolic lie" is really something. Not quite irony, not quite hypocrisy, but something.

  • Simjanes2kSimjanes2k Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    1. We should care if it's alive because that is what the morality of abortion is about. If a fetus is nothing more than an appendage, it should be controlled and it's fate determined by the mother. I contend that it is more than just an appendage.

    Please explain why you think this.

    To state it simply and quickly...

    An arm or leg, left to it's devices with normal instinctive behavior from it's owner, will remain an arm or a leg. A fetus will change and develop, and turn into a baby which is expelled from it's owner and becomes it's own person with appendages of it's own.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    If the argument is reduced to "cost in lives," perhaps we could compare how many abortions have taken place in history versus nuclear weapons? Or even how many abortions will take place this year versus nuking one major city?

    That, however, is not the issue. The reason that I made the comparison was to demonstrate that claims of using our body in desctructive ways being legal and morally just no matter what is not correct.
    A cluster of cells is not a life. A fetus which has died in utero is not a life. To equate every single abortion as a "lost life" is, at best, an incredibly hyperbolic lie. The vast, vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, so at least 25% of those wouldn't make it, anyway, and given that a lot of them occur because the life/health of the mother is threatened by them (like, say, mothers who have cancer), and they wouldn't make it, anyhow, the number is likely much higher than 25%.
    I am still not convinced that an egg that was fertilized one second ago is not a life. I cannot prove that it is, and you cannot prove that it isn't.

    Saying that it is "at best, an incredibly hyperbolic lie" is really something. Not quite irony, not quite hypocrisy, but something.
    Because 25% of them will die before birth, and a lot of them are dead already! I made that big, on the offhand chance that you just can't see very well, rather than being illiterate.

  • ZalbinionZalbinion Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    I am still not convinced that an egg that was fertilized one second ago is not a life. I cannot prove that it is, and you cannot prove that it isn't.

    Are you kidding? Of course you can! Any biologist can tell if an ovum is living or not.

    By "life" do you mean complete humanity? Moral status equal to that of a living adult? Because what, exactly, is similar (apart from genome) between a blastocyst and an adult human?

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »

    Why should we care if it's "alive"? Is a brain-dead human, kept breathing by machinery "alive"? Does it matter? Why?

    Because parents almost always have strong emotional attachments to their children?

    Look, just because biologically speaking the born-brainless fetus in question never had the capacity for sentience like other human individuals doesn't mean that the parents who looked forward to the infant's arrival didn't conceive of that infant as a person themselves, and they would no doubt have strong feelings about the infant's arrival.

    Right- It's a subjective feeling that really has no cause to be the basis of a law. People can reasonably form emotional attachments to a fetus at any stage of a pregnancy (or not form emotional attachments, for that matter).
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Terry Schiavo comes to mind. Whether she was alive or not she was still "people," insofar that society recognized her as an individual.

    Blastocysts and embryos aren't individuals.

    I would suggest that many people who felt that Terry Schiavo was an individual also consider fetuses and blastocysts individuls.

    I'm sure they do, but they're not following my definition. There needs to be a reasonable level of objectivity involved in this sort of thing, hence my reliance above on scientific terms and facts whenever possible.

    You can't really be objective about "personhood".

    A person who feels that a fetus is a person is just as right as someone who disagrees, because it's a purely subjective definition.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    Followup:

    The same goes for "alive".

    I'd agree, except that I don't consider it "chest-thumping" to state that if a fetus were removed from a woman and could breathe, it's alive. That seems awfully cut and dry to me.

    Why should we care if it's "alive"? Is a brain-dead human, kept breathing by machinery "alive"? Does it matter? Why?

    Yes they are alive, by biological standards. Cells which are undeniably human are still carrying out many processes of living, like respiration, just the organism as a whole will die if it doesn't receive outside support. However, brain-dead individuals aren't the only ones who will die without support.
    "People" is a subjective definition, and it doesn't matter, except where people are content to argue over retarded subjective definitions. Everyone's correct if you're arguing about "people". Brain-dead people are still "people". To say something "obviously" is or is not a person is just mindless, opinionated chest-thumping. It's not a compelling reason to be for or against abortion.

    Soylent green is people.

  • DiscGraceDiscGrace Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Simjanes2k wrote: »

    1. We should care if it's alive because that is what the morality of abortion is about. If a fetus is nothing more than an appendage, it should be controlled and it's fate determined by the mother. I contend that it is more than just an appendage.

    Please explain why you think this.

    To state it simply and quickly...

    An arm or leg, left to it's devices with normal instinctive behavior from it's owner, will remain an arm or a leg. A fetus will change and develop, and turn into a baby which is expelled from it's owner and becomes it's own person with appendages of it's own.

    Unless, y'know, it doesn't - my mom had more miscarriages than babies. And either way, a bunch of cells that could eventually become a separate living thing, that for the time being require being able to parasitize someone else's body to survive don't trump that body's right to not be parasitized. Besides, I could grow colonies on agar from samples of my cells and it would grow apart from myself. Or I could fertilize any of the eggs I ovulate every month. They all have the potential to be separate entities, but I doubt you say I'm morally obliged to do that. Potential != the rights of a full human being.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Simjanes2k wrote: »
    1. We should care if it's alive because that is what the morality of abortion is about. If a fetus is nothing more than an appendage, it should be controlled and it's fate determined by the mother. I contend that it is more than just an appendage.

    I disagree. I fail to see why we should be granting cells that are wholly incapable of feeling ethical considerations. We might as well be giving ethical considerations to rocks.
    2. I still don't know what to say about fetuses that could be born/removed and kept alive on machines, but not on it's own. You can't keep a rock breathing on life support, nor have I ever heard of corpses being revived years after death and brought to life by connecting machines. Who is to say what is worth saving in general?

    Chickens breathe, and we kill and eat them en masse. Why does it matter if something breathes or not?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • bloodatonementbloodatonement Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    You seem to be working on the principal that every life is sacred until it's born. At which point, fuck 'em, they're on their own.

    Pretty standard pro-life attitude. And look what happens as a result. That's freedom, baby!

    I realize this thread is moving pretty fast, but in regards to the first article:
    11.4 babies die per every 1,000 live births (compared to 6.9 per 1,000 nation-wide)
    And how many die per every 1,000 conceived? It just seems that if I higher percent of conceived babies are born, there may be a higher percent that die, but there should also be a high number that live.

    wpf91qjuczat.jpg
    Steam ID: Good Life
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    Terry Schiavo comes to mind. Whether she was alive or not she was still "people," insofar that society recognized her as an individual.

    Blastocysts and embryos aren't individuals.

    I would suggest that many people who felt that Terry Schiavo was an individual also consider fetuses and blastocysts individuls.

    I'm sure they do, but they're not following my definition. There needs to be a reasonable level of objectivity involved in this sort of thing, hence my reliance above on scientific terms and facts whenever possible.

    You can't really be objective about "personhood".

    A person who feels that a fetus is a person is just as right as someone who disagrees, because it's a purely subjective definition.

    Could I, in theory, then define you to not be a person and kill you? Silly question I know, but you can't just hide behind a wall of subjectivity and expect that to be at all meaningful. This subjectivity of personhood is very dangerous territory.

    Let's try out a different angle then. If a fetus fails to be a person, is it then still considered an animal? If so, on what grounds is it acceptable to kill such an animal? I'll prempt the argument over it being the same organism as the mother, as the fetus will have a different genetic makeup from the mother. Even if it was a clone, we still consider identical twins to be separate organisms.

Sign In or Register to comment.