Prolife or Prochoice?

TNine wrote:

PiEdude wrote:

TNine wrote:

kasrkin seath wrote:I view the whole "potential" case not as one of simply another potential human being, but the small chance that maybe they will be someone of importance. One way to look at it would be "what if so-and-so were never born?"

What if Obama's parents had never met, or had met 15 minutes later under severely different circumstances, such as Mr. Obama spilling his drink on Mrs. Obama and she never liked him? Obama never would have been born, correct?

There is potential for greatness and consquences exist in every moment of your life, every decision you make could have massive effects later on and most will. So i ask the question, what the FUCK does that have to do with a question of MORALS!?!?!?

There's still a difference between never conceiving a child in the first place, and removing one after conception.

Just because you yourself have no moral compass (or a simply undernourished sense of morality) does not mean that other people do not consider abortion to be a moral issue. Whether or not you consider the fetus to be alive is one thing, but saying that there is no moral factor at all in deciding whether or not to prevent a life (no matter what the circumstances) is just plain false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Edit: While i'm at it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

do you honestly trust wikipedia? ROFLCOPTOR *soysoysoysoysoysoy*

Ringleader wrote:Unconscious cluster of cells =/= human.

It's human when fertilization is complete, genetically at least.

Gauz wrote:

Ringleader wrote:Unconscious cluster of cells =/= human.

It's human when fertilization is complete, genetically at least.

I was referring to a TOOMAH

TNine wrote:

kasrkin seath wrote:

TNine wrote:

PiEdude wrote:

TNine wrote:

kasrkin seath wrote:I view the whole "potential" case not as one of simply another potential human being, but the small chance that maybe they will be someone of importance. One way to look at it would be "what if so-and-so were never born?"

What if Obama's parents had never met, or had met 15 minutes later under severely different circumstances, such as Mr. Obama spilling his drink on Mrs. Obama and she never liked him? Obama never would have been born, correct?

There is potential for greatness and consquences exist in every moment of your life, every decision you make could have massive effects later on and most will. So i ask the question, what the FUCK does that have to do with a question of MORALS!?!?!?

There's still a difference between never conceiving a child in the first place, and removing one after conception.

Just because you yourself have no moral compass (or a simply undernourished sense of morality) does not mean that other people do not consider abortion to be a moral issue. Whether or not you consider the fetus to be alive is one thing, but saying that there is no moral factor at all in deciding whether or not to prevent a life (no matter what the circumstances) is just plain false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Edit: While i'm at it:
[urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url]

You still failed to counter his argument, lol.

I think the whole thing really boils down to what someone considers human.

He didn't make an argument. He made a counter-argument to SOMETHING I NEVER SAID[u]. that's what straw man argument is.

Im sorry, but you obviously have no understanding of what you are talking about. You should take a break and get some fresh air

Rotaretilbo wrote:I am Pro-Choice. Deceiving, I know. You see, I believe that the choice should be made before you go about having sex. If you choose to have sex, then you have chosen to potentially bear children. Thus, I believe that abortion should be something you have to get approved in a court, so that it is only used in cases of rape or when medical complications would be caused by the birth.

You see, while everyone likes to tout around the issue of "what if the mother would die?" or "what if it was rape?" the fact remains that a VAST majority of abortions are not for these reasons. You see, about 8% of all abortions in the United States are because of these justifiable cuases, like rape or medical complications. The other 92% are because of reasons like "not ready to have children" or "can't afford to have children" or "partner doesn't want children" or "others don't want me to have children" or "children will disrupt education/career plans" or "have too many children" and such bullshit. That's right. Ninety fucking two percent of abortions are hiding behind eight percent of abortions as justification.

I'm certainly not trying to use those 8% to justify the rest. I think nearly all of them are justified. The fetus in question does not have emotions, or emotional connections with any other human being on Earth. At early stages, it hardly demonstrates any of what you and I would call "human characteristics." If non-intervention will result in the birth of an unwanted child whose parents' dreams and ambitions will thus be destroyed, then I don't think abortion is wrong. Again, I don't recognize any inherent value of human life. Humanity doesn't automatically come with the species. There's more to it than that. (read my previous post)

Sure, when a couple has sex, they are taking on the chance of having a child. But perhaps they're taking that chance with the intention of getting an abortion if they happen to luck out. In this case, that fetus, as with research embryos, would have never had any potential to become a child.

You all discuss "potential" in terms of what might happen without the factor of human intervention, but that's entirely illogical when we're talking about a human activity in the first place. You can't bitch about the destruction of a research embryo which was intended for destruction in the first place. It never had any "potential" because it was created on the basis of being destroyed. Similarly, many consider abortion a last-resort to prevent the birth of an unwanted child. In the same way, aborted fetuses of such parents never had any potential to live either, as they were conceived by individuals who already intended to abort them if they ever came about.

In the end, I care far more about the rights of those who already posses the features of humanity than I do of the rights of those who do not. If a person does not want a fetus living inside of them and feeding off of them for 9 months, they shouldn't be forced to tolerate it.

Seath wrote:

Im sorry, but you obviously have no understanding of what you are talking about. You should take a break and get some fresh air

maybe you should read what he said....

He was attacking your argument that the potential consequences of the birth of a child are relevant to the ethical soundness of abortion. He wasn't trying to suggest that abortion is not a moral issue.

do you honestly trust wikipedia? ROFLCOPTOR *soysoysoysoysoysoy

Do you honestly trust the Catholic Church? ROFLCOPTOR *soysoysoysoysoysoy

Anyway, if you actually bothered looking at what he linked to, he was posting about logical fallacies, which wikipedia probably provides accurate enough descriptions of.

But you're seeing a child as a punishment, and you say it feeds off the mother.
True. But everyone did (and still does) to this day. You seem to say they are a paricite. Well, guess what? So was everyone here today.

And that fetus is alive. It us very consious too. If it wasn't alive, it wouldn't grow yes? And in order to grow, it NEEDS to "feed" per sae off the mother to live. That child is a blessing...not a punishment that should be treated as nothing but a blob of cells.

Too many women are getting abortions because they can. And that's what's angers me. They don't have a justifiable reason to even HAVE one (excluding medical reasons)

Yes I trust the Catholic Church. You got something against Catholics now? Lol. Let's stay ON TOPIC please. I hate it when people get off topic >.<

Maeve wrote:But you're seeing a child as a punishment, and you say it feeds off the mother.
True. But everyone did (and still does) to this day. You seem to say they are a paricite. Well, guess what? So was everyone here today.

Yes, everyone here today was once a fetus. Unlike aborted fetuses, our mothers decided to keep us. But yeah, in a lot of cases, pregnancy can be seen as a burden.

Maeve wrote:And that fetus is alive. It us very consious too. If it wasn't alive, it would grow yes? And in order to grow, it NEEDS to "feed" per sae off the mother to live. That child is a blessing...not a punishment that should be treated as nothing but a blob of cells.

In reality, not everyone... in every situation... considers pregnancy to be a blessing. That's reality.

Anyway, I realize that it's alive. Humans are perfectly comfortable with brutally slaughtering many forms of life. What matters to me is whether or not it currently demonstrates characteristics of humanity, and fetuses do not.

Maeve wrote:Too many women are getting abortions because they can. And that's what's angers me. They don't have a justifiable reason to even HAVE one (excluding medical reasons)

The birth of a child could destroy their dreams and render them forever dependent upon federal money and/or their parents. That's reason enough for me.

Maeve wrote:But you're seeing a child as a punishment, and you say it feeds off the mother.
True. But everyone did (and still does) to this day. You seem to say they are a paricite. Well, guess what? So was everyone here today.

And that fetus is alive. It us very consious too. If it wasn't alive, it wouldn't grow yes? And in order to grow, it NEEDS to "feed" per sae off the mother to live. That child is a blessing...not a punishment that should be treated as nothing but a blob of cells.

Too many women are getting abortions because they can. And that's what's angers me. They don't have a justifiable reason to even HAVE one (excluding medical reasons)

No one is saying a fetus is not alive. It is.

It's not human. I wasn't human when i was in the womb, i was a fetus that evolved to be human. Sure, it is alive, but so is a cow before it's a hamburger, right?

It's not a human until it is conscious. Before that, it is just a blob of cells.

Maeve wrote:

TNine wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Because a lone egg and lone (well, maybe not lone) sperm does not a human make.

Neither does an aborted fetus, genius.

But see, a fetus is a human. They can feel, hear, cough, move, kick, become sick, etc. How isn't that human?

they can't do anything except eat food and get sick until long after it is illegal to abort them... for half the legal abortion time their brains aren't even as well developed as an earthworms...

Come on, we shouldn't have to go through this...

ReconToaster wrote: You all discuss "potential" in terms of what might happen without the factor of human intervention, but that's entirely illogical when we're talking about a human activity in the first place.

It is, of course, a human activity. Human intervention afterwards would also be a human activity. How that makes discussing the intervention and its outcomes, which are severely different, illogical has yet to be explained.

ReconToaster wrote: You can't bitch about the destruction of a research embryo which was intended for destruction in the first place. It never had any "potential" because it was created on the basis of being destroyed.

Exactly, it never had any potential because it was created to be destroyed. In every other case, however, the embryo is not created with the specific purpose of being destroyed.

ReconToaster wrote:
Similarly, many consider abortion a last-resort to prevent the birth of an unwanted child. In the same way, aborted fetuses of such parents never had any potential to live either, as they were conceived by individuals who already intended to abort them if they ever came about.

It's not the same as those created for research. Research embryo's ARE CREATED for research. The fetuses just mentioned are destroyed IF THEY ARE concieved. If you try to argue that the parents who dont want the child are creating the fetus to be destroyed, it imply's a degree of certainty that a child will be concieved, and that their only goal in doing so is to destroy it. In that case, they should not be having sex or be made sterile(personal opinion)

ReconToaster wrote: In the end, I care far more about the rights of those who already posses the features of humanity than I do of the rights of those who do not. If a person does not want a fetus living inside of them and feeding off of them for 9 months, they shouldn't be forced to tolerate it.

If they don't want the fetus, they shouldn't take the risk, or at least try to lessen it as much as possible. Yes, there is that small chance that even with the miracles of the modern world designed to keep someone from getting pregnant, it still happens. However, there are girls who simply dont care because they CAN get an abortion to remove the problem, and who nonchalantly get pregnant without any second thoughts do to this.

From my point of view, there are times when it is appropriate, and times when it is not.

TNine wrote:
No one is saying a fetus is not alive. It is.

It's not human. I wasn't human when i was in the womb, i was a fetus that evolved to be human. Sure, it is alive, but so is a cow before it's a hamburger, right?

It's not a human until it is conscious. Before that, it is just a blob of cells.

And I'd say that consciousness alone does not properly characterize humanity. Every animal on this planet is "conscious."

TNine wrote:

Maeve wrote:But you're seeing a child as a punishment, and you say it feeds off the mother.
True. But everyone did (and still does) to this day. You seem to say they are a paricite. Well, guess what? So was everyone here today.

And that fetus is alive. It us very consious too. If it wasn't alive, it wouldn't grow yes? And in order to grow, it NEEDS to "feed" per sae off the mother to live. That child is a blessing...not a punishment that should be treated as nothing but a blob of cells.

Too many women are getting abortions because they can. And that's what's angers me. They don't have a justifiable reason to even HAVE one (excluding medical reasons)

No one is saying a fetus is not alive. It is.

It's not human. I wasn't human when i was in the womb, i was a fetus that evolved to be human. Sure, it is alive, but so is a cow before it's a hamburger, right?

It's not a human until it is conscious. Before that, it is just a blob of cells.

this is what pisses me off about you people. You say it's alive and yet call it a "blob of cells" or something else. It's NOT a blob of cells. It's a person. And should be treated as such. But in a way, everyone is just a blob of cells. Our skin is cells, out muscle is cells, our eyes is cells...so you can't just call it a blob of cells when we as people are a blob of cells as well.

KrAzY wrote:

Maeve wrote:

TNine wrote:

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Because a lone egg and lone (well, maybe not lone) sperm does not a human make.

Neither does an aborted fetus, genius.

But see, a fetus is a human. They can feel, hear, cough, move, kick, become sick, etc. How isn't that human?

they can't do anything except eat food and get sick until long after it is illegal to abort them... for half the legal abortion time their brains aren't even as well developed as an earthworms...

we are talking about fetuses...not embyros. And a fetus' brain is very developed, so YES they CAN do all those things you crossed off, KrAzY.

Maeve wrote:

TNine wrote:

Maeve wrote:But you're seeing a child as a punishment, and you say it feeds off the mother.
True. But everyone did (and still does) to this day. You seem to say they are a paricite. Well, guess what? So was everyone here today.

And that fetus is alive. It us very consious too. If it wasn't alive, it wouldn't grow yes? And in order to grow, it NEEDS to "feed" per sae off the mother to live. That child is a blessing...not a punishment that should be treated as nothing but a blob of cells.

Too many women are getting abortions because they can. And that's what's angers me. They don't have a justifiable reason to even HAVE one (excluding medical reasons)

No one is saying a fetus is not alive. It is.

It's not human. I wasn't human when i was in the womb, i was a fetus that evolved to be human. Sure, it is alive, but so is a cow before it's a hamburger, right?

It's not a human until it is conscious. Before that, it is just a blob of cells.

this is what pisses me off about you people. You say it's alive and yet call it a "blob of cells" or something else. It's NOT a blob of cells. It's a person. And should be treated as such. But in a way, everyone is just a blob of cells. Our skin is cells, out muscle is cells, our eyes is cells...so you can't just call it a blob of cells when we as people are a blob of cells as well.

It's as though you're not even bothering to read our posts. Every creature on this earth is "alive," but you do not value it as you value human life. Every creature on this earth is composed of cells, but you do not value it as you value human life. THOSE TRAITS ARE NECESSARY FOR HUMAN LIFE BUT THEY ARE NOT WHAT MAKE HUMAN LIFE UNIQUE AND VALUABLE.

Maeve wrote:we are talking about fetuses...not embyros. And a fetus' brain is very developed, so YES they CAN do all those things you crossed off, KrAzY.

So can cow embryo's....

how is this uniquely human?

Maeve wrote:

TNine wrote:

Maeve wrote:But you're seeing a child as a punishment, and you say it feeds off the mother.
True. But everyone did (and still does) to this day. You seem to say they are a paricite. Well, guess what? So was everyone here today.

And that fetus is alive. It us very consious too. If it wasn't alive, it wouldn't grow yes? And in order to grow, it NEEDS to "feed" per sae off the mother to live. That child is a blessing...not a punishment that should be treated as nothing but a blob of cells.

Too many women are getting abortions because they can. And that's what's angers me. They don't have a justifiable reason to even HAVE one (excluding medical reasons)

No one is saying a fetus is not alive. It is.

It's not human. I wasn't human when i was in the womb, i was a fetus that evolved to be human. Sure, it is alive, but so is a cow before it's a hamburger, right?

It's not a human until it is conscious. Before that, it is just a blob of cells.

this is what pisses me off about you people. You say it's alive and yet call it a "blob of cells" or something else. It's NOT a blob of cells. It's a person. And should be treated as such. But in a way, everyone is just a blob of cells. Our skin is cells, out muscle is cells, our eyes is cells...so you can't just call it a blob of cells when we as people are a blob of cells as well.

I can actively think about the current situation, not just react to it.

It's not the skin, or the internal organs, or the muscles that make a person. It's the brain (which i guess is an internal organ), more specifically our ability to think. And think like a human too, not like other species (this is more cause were carnivores than anything).

Maeve wrote:

TNine wrote:

Maeve wrote:But you're seeing a child as a punishment, and you say it feeds off the mother.
True. But everyone did (and still does) to this day. You seem to say they are a paricite. Well, guess what? So was everyone here today.

And that fetus is alive. It us very consious too. If it wasn't alive, it wouldn't grow yes? And in order to grow, it NEEDS to "feed" per sae off the mother to live. That child is a blessing...not a punishment that should be treated as nothing but a blob of cells.

Too many women are getting abortions because they can. And that's what's angers me. They don't have a justifiable reason to even HAVE one (excluding medical reasons)

No one is saying a fetus is not alive. It is.

It's not human. I wasn't human when i was in the womb, i was a fetus that evolved to be human. Sure, it is alive, but so is a cow before it's a hamburger, right?

It's not a human until it is conscious. Before that, it is just a blob of cells.

this is what pisses me off about you people. You say it's alive and yet call it a "blob of cells" or something else. It's NOT a blob of cells. It's a person. And should be treated as such. But in a way, everyone is just a blob of cells. Our skin is cells, out muscle is cells, our eyes is cells...so you can't just call it a blob of cells when we as people are a blob of cells as well.

So then would it be right to kill a deer? It's just a "blob of cells", then, right? Or is it a person too?

Seath wrote:It's not the same as those created for research. Research embryo's ARE CREATED for research. The fetuses just mentioned are destroyed IF THEY ARE concieved. If you try to argue that the parents who dont want the child are creating the fetus to be destroyed, it imply's a degree of certainty that a child will be concieved, and that their only goal in doing so is to destroy it. In that case, they should not be having sex or be made sterile(personal opinion)

Either way, they had no potential to live, as their destruction was assured prior to their conception.

Seath wrote:If they don't want the fetus, they shouldn't take the risk, or at least try to lessen it as much as possible. Yes, there is that small chance that even with the miracles of the modern world designed to keep someone from getting pregnant, it still happens. However, there are girls who simply dont care because they CAN get an abortion to remove the problem, and who nonchalantly get pregnant without any second thoughts do to this.

I agree that it's irresponsible and impractical to rely on abortion as a primary method of birth control, but hardly anybody does that, and even in such a case, I think the only thing which makes it impractical is the fact that condoms are a hell of a lot cheaper than an abortion.

I'm arguing that an early human fetus does not posses the characteristics of humanity... so I don't think it matters if that person gets an abortion.

*GOES TO BED~~~~~

For the record, I'm only quoting Recon here because TNine's arguments are so convoluted and ignorant that I really didn't feel the need to respond to them, as most thinking being should be able to recognize them as such. If requested, I can go back and support this assertion by tearing apart the fragments that TNine seems to believe are logic that separate his posts from non-sentient dribble an incoherent letters and symbols mashed together.

ReconToaster wrote:I'm certainly not trying to use those 8% to justify the rest. I think nearly all of them are justified. The fetus in question does not have emotions, or emotional connections with any other human being on Earth. At early stages, it hardly demonstrates any of what you and I would call "human characteristics."

When does life begin? Surely the beginning of life would be marked by some kind of event. Is a baby alive when it is born? Yes. What about the day before that? Yes. And the day before that? What event, other than conception, can one use to determine when life begins, during the development of a baby?

ReconToaster wrote: If non-intervention will result in the birth of an unwanted child whose parents' dreams and ambitions will thus be destroyed, then I don't think abortion is wrong. Again, I don't recognize any inherent value of human life. Humanity doesn't automatically come with the species. There's more to it than that. (read my previous post)

There's a very simple solution to all that. If having a child would ruin your dreams and ambitions, don't fucking have sex! When you have sex, you are willingly partaking of an event that has a known risk. Imagine, for a moment, that you are driving down the road when a drunk driver runs a red light and T-bones you, and so you sue the car company for making the car. When you drive your car, you are accepting that there is a chance that you might get into an accident. The car company didn't force you to drive the car, you chose to drive it. You have no right to blame anyone but yourself (and the guy who hit you) for the accident. When you have sex willingly, you are accepting that there is a risk that you might have a child. If you can, therefore, not afford to have a child, you shouldn't be having sex.

And even then, there is an adoption system! If having a child is truly going to ruin your life, put it up for adoption!

Sure, when a couple has sex, they are taking on the chance of having a child. But perhaps they're taking that chance with the intention of getting an abortion if they happen to luck out. In this case, that fetus, as with research embryos, would have never had any potential to become a child.[/quote]

Circular reasoning. The simple existence of abortion cannot justify the practice of abortion. Not to mention that this is just another instance of hiding behind the extreme minority.

ReconToaster wrote:You all discuss "potential" in terms of what might happen without the factor of human intervention, but that's entirely illogical when we're talking about a human activity in the first place. You can't bitch about the destruction of a research embryo which was intended for destruction in the first place. It never had any "potential" because it was created on the basis of being destroyed. Similarly, many consider abortion a last-resort to prevent the birth of an unwanted child. In the same way, aborted fetuses of such parents never had any potential to live either, as they were conceived by individuals who already intended to abort them if they ever came about.

More circular reasoning. You cannot argue that something does not have potential simply because it did not meet that potential. Otherwise, potential would not exist.

ReconToaster wrote:In the end, I care far more about the rights of those who already posses the features of humanity than I do of the rights of those who do not. If a person does not want a fetus living inside of them and feeding off of them for 9 months, they shouldn't be forced to tolerate it.

You make it sound like it's just a choice between an adult and a fetus, like the level of rights we're talking about is irrelevant because either way would remove the same right from either party. But that isn't the case. While the rights of an adult may be more important to you than the rights of a fetus, the right to live is surely more important than the right to comfort.

KrAzY wrote:they can't do anything except eat food and get sick until long after it is illegal to abort them... for half the legal abortion time their brains aren't even as well developed as an earthworms...

You just described half of the population.

ReconToaster wrote:Either way, they had no potential to live, as their destruction was assured prior to their conception.

I would also note that Jews are not alive, because their destruction was assured under Hitler's rule. Because, you know, everything always goes according to plan. Truly, your grasp of the concept of "potential" is about as flawed as can possibly be.

Jesus...this isn't a topic about animals. If you wanna debate about animals GO MAKE A DIFFERENT TOPIC. Call it PETA or something...again, THIS IS ABOUT ABORTION...NOT ANIMALS! STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE.

Maeve wrote:Jesus...this isn't a topic about animals. If you wanna debate about animals GO MAKE A DIFFERENT TOPIC. Call it PETA or something...again, THIS IS ABOUT ABORTION...NOT ANIMALS! STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE.

I'm comparing killing a deer with abortion. Is it right to kill a deer for food? Yes. We need food to survive. Is it right to abort an unconscious (practically brainless) fetus if it endangers the mental health or health of another, living person, who has a life, a family, and so many other things? Maybe so.

FUCK! MY COMPUTER ERASED MY ENTIRE FUCKING POST!

I'll reply to you in the morning, or tomorrow night, Rot.

Nocbl2 wrote:I'm comparing killing a deer with abortion. Is it right to kill a deer for food? Yes. We need food to survive. Is it right to abort an unconscious (practically brainless) fetus if it endangers the mental health or health of another, living person, who has a life, a family, and so many other things? Maybe so.

Hiding behind the minority, are we? Is it right to abort an unconscious fetus if it does not endanger the health of another person? Because 97% (within the 8% of justifiable abortions, 3% of abortions are because of fetal health issues, 3% of abortions are because of maternal health issues, and 2% of abortions are for other reasons, presumably things like rape) of the time, that's what we're talking about.

TNine wrote:FUCK! MY COMPUTER ERASED MY ENTIRE FUCKING POST!

I'll reply to you in the morning, or tomorrow night, Rot.

Not much of a response you can present, other than to ask me to back up my statement that your previous posts are a mindless dribble of some of the most fallacious bullshit on the face of the planet. I'll start working on my mega quote that grinds any shred of logic your posts might have had into the dust of obliteration. In fact, I think I'll just quote every post in this thread. It's been too long since I quoted five pages worth of posts.