Prolife or Prochoice?

Ringleader wrote:

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

Please reiterate statement. TOOMAH results in zero relevant hits on Bing.

Maeve wrote:do you honestly trust wikipedia? ROFLCOPTOR *soysoysoysoysoysoy*

Hey, it's reliable!

ReconToaster wrote:

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."

What do you consider "Humanity", then, hmm?
Opposable thumbs? Better-developed human brains? A tendency to walk upright? A tendency to fashion bones and flint into clubs and knives to kill our prey and cut them up into handy hunks of meat?

That is all in our genetics. Our genetics, distinct from all other species on the planet, is what makes us human. The genetics every embryo has from birth.

ReconToaster wrote:
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.

Here's my take on pregnancy.
You ever gamble? I mean, play a game of chance and bet money?
I don't. I'm not a gambler, but I can understand that there's a certain sort of pleasure gleaned from it.

When a gambler enters a casino, he (should) understand that there's a chance that he'll lose terribly. If he's smart, then he should stay sober and put a limit on how much he's allowed to gamble. If he gambles away this month's paycheck...
Bugger. Life has consequences.

If those people were taking the chance, they get stuck with the result. It's a consequence. If they really were thinking ahead like you assumed they were, they should have put a Trojan over Mr. Smiley (I mean, seriously, does anybody else think that "Trojan" is the absolute LAST name you should have given a condom?) and the woman should have been on the Pill (And you, the guy with the condom! What's the matter with the /male/ pill, huh?)

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.

With all due respect, sir, he has yet to come close to Zaki's level.

No, I have seen Zaki at his absolute worse, and I can say with absolute surety that TNine is putting Zaki to shame right now. I'm working on responding to posts on the fourth page as we speak.

Rot wrote: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?

I don't think it matters when life begins. What matters is when it comes to demonstrate uniquely human characteristics. A fetus which feels no emotions and is not loved by anyone on the outside world, and does not even resemble the human form, isn't what I call human life.

Rot wrote: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.

Rot... THAT DOESN'T MATTER. I think we all understand that not having sex would prevent the birth of unwanted children. Nevertheless, people will have sex, and people will get pregnant with unwanted children. Nobody is arguing against that. What I'm arguing is that life, at that point, is not of greater value, so I could care less about whether or not it lives. And really... people who get abortions AREN'T blaming anyone but themselves. They're taking responsibility for what they did and paying the price of abortion (literally.)

Rot wrote: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.

I'm saying that something does not have potential when it was created with the intention of being destroyed before developing uniquely human characteristics. It never was human. It never will be human. It's not human.

Rot wrote: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.

No, because the jews killed in the holocaust were already living human beings who contributed to society PRIOR TO BEING KILLED. This is what sets me off about PETA members comparing thanksgiving to the holocaust. TURKEYS DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY OR HAVE ANY ADVANCED EMOTIONS.

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.

Analogies are often used to draw comparisons and reveal inconsistencies in logic. Lern to argue. Stop bitching.

I believe in choice.
Weather they are alive or not is irrelevant. I think just because they are a fetus doesn't mean it is too late to correct a mistake.
I don't care what anyone else says.

Recon, LEARN to spell. And there is a reason why I'm in here...it's to actually LEARN how to argue BETTER. So back off.

Cost of abortion:
Petty amount of cash
Insignificant amount of time for operation
10+ years of labor

"For every mouth comes attached two hands" is a quote(or at least similar to one) that comes to mind when I think about the value of a human being. Even someone who is stupid can supply alot of labor. Then there is the added bonus that the person might be smart.


And about a fetus contributing to society and having emotions... of course it doesn't! It's a fetus! But, if you dont kill it, it becomes a living creature, and in this case, a human being.

If you plant a seed to grow a carrot, you can expect in time to get a carrot, a crunchy and delicious vegetable that serves a purpose by providing nutrition. If someone comes and suddenly kills the early carrot, then it will never be able to grow and be eaten by a hungry creature.

If a farmer does not want to grow crops, he should not be planting seeds in the ground.

Maeve wrote:Recon, LEARN to spell. And there is a reason why I'm in here...it's to actually LEARN how to argue BETTER. So back off.

The phrase "lern to... (something)" Is a commonly used meme, and the incorrect spelling is intentional.

Anyway, here's a tip: When somebody makes an analogy comparing a fetus to a cow, don't respond by calling their argument irrelevant for talking about cows.

"For every mouth comes attached two hands" is a quote(or at least similar to one) that comes to mind when I think about the value of a human being. Even someone who is stupid can supply alot of labor. Then there is the added bonus that the person might be smart.

What's the unemployment rate again? I don't think we're in dire need of workers.

Seath wrote:And about a fetus contributing to society and having emotions... of course it doesn't! It's a fetus! But, if you dont kill it, it becomes a living creature, and in this case, a human being.

Of course. But when you kill it, it is none of those things. Therefore, I would never call it "murder," or anything close to it.

Seath wrote:If you plant a seed to grow a carrot, you can expect in time to get a carrot, a crunchy and delicious vegetable that serves a purpose by providing nutrition. If someone comes and suddenly kills the early carrot, then it will never be able to grow and be eaten by a hungry creature.

On the other hand, if a farmer wishes to dig up that seed before it ever develops into a carrot (for whatever reason he or she may have,) by God, that's his prerogative.

Seath wrote:If a farmer does not want to grow crops, he should not be planting seeds in the ground.

Yeah, we get it. Having unprotected sex carries with it the risk of pregnancy. But honestly, is it really morally sound to force a girl to raise an unwanted child and give up on all of her hopes and dreams simply because she forgot to take the pill one day? Or because she made one stupid mistake? I really don't think it is.

Of course, you could put the kid up for adoption, but even pregnancy alone can heavily impact someone's life.

Clearly, people who don't want children should make efforts to ensure that they do not have children, but if they slip up, I don't see anything wrong with getting an abortion.

Are they irresponsible for having fucked up in the first place? Yes. Does that mean they should be forced to have the child? No.

Rasq wrote:What do you consider "Humanity", then, hmm?
Opposable thumbs? Better-developed human brains? A tendency to walk upright? A tendency to fashion bones and flint into clubs and knives to kill our prey and cut them up into handy hunks of meat?

That is all in our genetics. Our genetics, distinct from all other species on the planet, is what makes us human. The genetics every embryo has from birth.

Humanity is obtained, at the very least, when a human being is capable of practicing compassion, or is at least an object of compassion. Humanity does not come with physical attributes. And yes, such traits to come with our DNA, but that's not what matters to me. At its time of death, a human fetus does not and never has demonstrated such traits.

Rasq wrote:If those people were taking the chance, they get stuck with the result. It's a consequence.

And that consequence is an expensive abortion fee.

Yam Head wrote:

Maeve wrote:CivBase...Really? Wow...Really? lol

Have you ever read the satire regarding the potato famine and children? The name escapes me at the moment.

We read that in english ;)
it's called "A Modest Proposal"

Double post, sorry, Can a mod delete this one please

ReconToaster wrote:
Yeah, we get it. Having unprotected sex carries with it the risk of pregnancy. But honestly, is it really morally sound to force a girl to raise an unwanted child and give up on all of her hopes and dreams simply because she forgot to take the pill one day? Or because she made one stupid mistake? I really don't think it is.

I really don't think it's fair to Kill someone else "because she made one stupid mistake". And until someone can present a a logical beginning to humanity other than conception (I threw down the gauntlet and I might be wrong but no one has yet adequately picked it up), the status quo is that abortion is murder.

ReconToaster wrote:
Of course, you could put the kid up for adoption, but even pregnancy alone can heavily impact someone's life.

Clearly, people who don't want children should make efforts to ensure that they do not have children, but if they slip up, I don't see anything wrong with getting an abortion.

Are they irresponsible for having fucked up in the first place? Yes. Does that mean they should be forced to have the child? No.

Let's ask two formerly pregnant teens, one that was prematurely burdened with a responsibility that they most likely have come to love and care for, and one that went through the emotional and medical trauma that comes even with unintentional abortions, combine that with the personal and social guilt of knowing that they choose that for themselves, and see who's better off. Even if you don't accept the humanity of the child, find concern for the humanity of the mother.

Tylerlat wrote:Let's ask two formerly pregnant teens, one that was prematurely burdened with a responsibility that they most likely have come to love and care for, and one that went through the emotional and medical trauma that comes even with unintentional abortions, combine that with the personal and social guilt of knowing that they choose that for themselves, and see who's better off. Even if you don't accept the humanity of the child, find concern for the humanity of the mother.

Did I say young girls should be forced to have abortions? Did I say they shouldn't be educated about the subject? It would seem to follow your own set of logic that, should a girl choose abortion and later regret it, she must simply live with the consequences.

Anyway, among people who share my beliefs, that personal and social guilt does not exist. Perhaps that's a problem that should be addressed directly.

Tylerlat wrote:I really don't think it's fair to Kill someone else "because she made one stupid mistake".

You're not killing it because of that. Its entire existence is a mistake. You're killing it because you don't want to have to carry it for nine months and take care of it for years afterward. The fact that it does not yet demonstrate human qualities makes that justifiable in my eyes.

You're not killing it because of that. Its entire existence is a mistake. You're killing it because you don't want to have to carry it for nine months and take care of it for years afterward. The fact that it does not yet demonstrate human qualities makes that justifiable in my eyes.

Ok, i again ask, when DOES it deomonstrate "human qualities". a newborn child is incapable of sustaining itself, movement, arguably of showing any emotion other than comfort/discomfort... To not take care of that child is neglegent homicide, but to intentionally kill a locationally dissimilar "entitiy" based on those same traits is justified? I still don't know what you or the oppostion consider 'human'.

Maybe we should, like, set a point at which we can agree a fetus has "humanity". I mean, one can argue that an infant or fetus isn't human becasue it doesn't possess self-conciousness.

I personally think that "humanity" is acquired when the fetus is able to be removed from the environment it was dependent on before, and survive. That's usually when the lungs mature, 25 weeks into fetal development.

Gauz wrote:Maybe we should, like, set a point at which we can agree a fetus has "humanity". I mean, one can argue that an infant or fetus isn't human becasue it doesn't possess self-conciousness.

I personally think that "humanity" is acquired when the fetus is able to be removed from the environment it was dependent on before, and survive. That's usually when the lungs mature, 25 weeks into fetal development.

I support Gauz's proposal. I think I can speak for the pro-lifers when I say humanity begins at conception. Please correct me if I'm wrong. While I don't expect a unanamous answer from the oppostion, I've yet to hear even a usable answer.

Also, a baby cannot be removed from "the environment it was dependent on before" and survive without the assistance of a Neo-Natal Intensive Care Unit.

a human is not human without emotion or memories

so im pro-choice as its the womans body and the fetus is nothing more than a growth within her until it can think for its self

I'm more prolife because since I don't really intend on getting pregnant, I don't have to worry about any of the "omg carrying an unwanted baby for 9 months and raising it stuff... how inconvenient" and as such, I can focus on the "omg ur killing a baby! MURDERER"

really though, I don't understand why I'm profile considering that I'm all for the killing of people I don't like very much. Maybe it's just because babies are more innocent or something. Or it could be because it's been drilled into me by my padres. The point is, there wasn't really a point in making this post at all actually.

I would simply like to ask why must there be a definite beginning to humanity? Humanity is a big thing, it comes in little parts. I believe the first part becomes at the first forming of the conscience, emotions, etc. You know, the things that make us HUMAN?

TNine wrote:I would simply like to ask why must there be a definite beginning to humanity? Humanity is a big thing, it comes in little parts. I believe the first part becomes at the first forming of the conscience, emotions, etc. You know, the things that make us HUMAN?

You just defined your version of a definite begining.

Why must there be one? So that you know wether to classify a growing child as "Human" or as "Thing", which is practically where the entire debate comes from

babies in the womb are parasites:

1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

The female body views male fetus's as foriegn objects

KristallNacht wrote:babies in the womb are parasites:

1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

And? So everyone was a parasite at one point in time by that logic.

but we're no longer such litteral parasites.

does that mean a tapeworm that will eventually leave your body is any less a parasite?


http://www.esquire.com/women/women-issue/survey-of-american-women-0510

question twelve is of particular interest.

seems that you guys can argue all you want, but if we let women choose then its legal.

You are not any more, but you were.
You cannot compare to a tapework, because tapeworms will never grow into a human being.

I dont care what they say, I have my own opinion. An honestly, from who I know IRL, the stats are waaaay different.

maybe cause you only know 12 yr old girls?

KristallNacht wrote:maybe cause you only know 12 yr old girls?

Virtually every female I know is in the 15 - 80 Something range. Not counting family it'd be like 15 - 30.

Where was the poll taken? Different areas of the nation tend to have opposing views on such matters.