Abortion

[Neil Peart]

I already told you why that is debatable. If we go by your logic, killing a newborn child it's also okay.

If you're going to continue to be massively fallacious, this debate is over between you and me. It's like pushing a boulder up an icy hill.

 

[Neil Peart]

Fallacious because my logic doesn't say it's OK to kill a newborn baby at all. You're being irrational. A baby develops the capacity to be conscious, rational, self-motivated, self-aware and morally responsible THE MOMENT IT IS BORN AS AN ACTUAL HUMAN BEING.

Your argument hinges upon the assertion that abortion is wrong because we're killing a POTENTIAL human. That says nothing of whether or not it IS a human, and the common pro-life argument is that it's murder because we're killing a human. So, define what a human being is and we can continue. Otherwise, this is pointless.

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

Massively fallacious?

I think the mold allergy is unhelpful, myself. But your argument seems to be that since it has the potential to become a full-fledged human being, killing it is murder. So by your own logic, killing sperm or egg cells is also murder. In which case, men would be prohibited from masturbating, and women should have sex as often as possible to prevent letting that egg fall out.

I can only assume you don't actually think that, so yes, massively fallacious is the correct term for it.

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

Nope. I explained in one of my posts that there is human nature since the hembryo is formed.

Which is false. Human nature doesn't exist until the brain is developed much further. Besides, that's irrelevant since you are still arguing that the potential alone is what makes it a human. Which is like saying I'm an astronaut, just because I thought about it once.

Anyways, it's pretty obvious you think that from the quote you edited from Undertaker. That big 'yet' says it all.

So, I guess you'd have a problem with depriving mold the right to grow and proliferate by spraying it with Scrubbing Bubbles then, right? When you say we're killing "them" before they're born, you still have to define what "them" is. You don't seem to be too willing to do that, so I'll try my best: "Them" has not developed YET the capacity to be conscious, rational, self-motivated, self-aware and morally responsible. Therefore, "Them" is not a person, and ending its biological process is not a crime or morally corrupt.

TL;DR yes, it's OK to do.

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

And as I said, the brain is fully developed at the age of six, which is how I refute how Undertaker defines the newborn child as human.

Don't tell me I'm wrong and then quote yourself as a source. I'm not going to be convinced of anything you say if you told me that you said it.

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

I don't understand the point of this, anyway... I'm not trying to convince you or anyone for that matter, I'm just saying that your invalidations to my points are wrong. Because all the definitions of human that have been given are wrong, so far.

Someone said that terminating the pregnancy was okay, because it wasn't human yet and I'm arguing that the definition of human is quite ambiguous. The theory that the fetus is human, cannot be discarded right away. That's why I'm not arguing about this with Harley Quinn or others that haven't try to give a technical definiton to the fetus; if it can be considered human or not. For instance, Harley said she didn't considered fetuses as human beings and I can't argue against a personal definition, but if we're trying to be technical then you should welcome the opposing side of the debate.

I haven't given you any definitions of what I think a human is, because everyone's definition is an opinion. Yours is just as wrong as everyone else's. I don't care if you think a sperm is a human. All I've done is pointed out how your logic is flawed, and you keep telling me my definition of a human is wrong, even though I've not even supplied you with one.

 

[Dusty]

All right, so instead of you guys arguing back and forth over assumptions and insulting each others equally ambiguous points, how about you simply attempt to define exactly at what point does a fetus become a human? You're both beating around the bush and more just insulting each other than having any valid points.

A fetus starts to have its own heartbeat at, what, four or five weeks? Something like that. It starts to have its own brain activity at twelve weeks, and as someone (cant remember who and not bothered enough to check) said earlier, the brain continues to develop until around age six. So at what point in there does it become a human, and not just a fetus?

I think we can assume that its a given that after it is born, it is regarded as human, regardless of whether the brain is still developing or not. After all, if you try to kill a baby, that is defined as murder, and you will probably go to jail. So we would have to decide does it become human while in the womb? Or after it is born?

 

[Esper]

Perhaps one should consider the idea that the point at which a fetus becomes a person is fluid or that it is up to the mother. Or that even if it is a person the circumstances and/or desires of the mother might make it acceptable to have an abortion anyway.

 

[Kanzler]

Perhaps one should consider the idea that the point at which a fetus becomes a person is fluid

Valid question...

or that it is up to the mother.

That's ridiculous. I don't think it's down to individuals to decide who is a person and who isn't.

Or that even if it is a person the circumstances and/or desires of the mother might make it acceptable to have an abortion anyway.

Valid question.

 

[Fannie]

Is abortion murder if the baby's in the womb?
As opposed to where? In a crib? I don't think it's murder but I think if I was put in a situation where I had to make this choice aborting wouldn't feel much different.

If pro choice, in what circumstances do you feel abortion should be allowed?
It's not my place to say when it should be allowed for anyone but myself. I will say this though - you can be on birth control and still get pregnant so 'taking responsibility' isn't always so black and white.

Why are you pro choice or pro life?
I'm pro-choice because I'm not a moral dictator.

 

[gimmepie]

If pro choice, in what circumstances do you feel abortion should be allowed?
It's not my place to say when it should be allowed for anyone but myself. I will say this though - you can be on birth control and still get pregnant so 'taking responsibility' isn't always so black and white.

Yes, it really is that black and white. If you have consensual sex, then you are acknowledging the risk that you might get pregnant. Period. It is common knowledge that birth control isn't infallible and using it doesn't make you immune to potential consequences of those actions. You have sex, you're taking the risk. You don't have the right to take a life because you don't like the outcome of your actions.

If I choose to steal a car and get caught, I'm not going to like going to prison, but it's going to happen.

Why are you pro choice or pro life?
I'm pro-choice because I'm not a moral dictator.

So basically, anyone who has the opposite view to you is a moral dictator. No hypocrisy there, none at all. Nope. Absolutely zero.

 

[Kanzler]

Yes, it really is that black and white. If you have consensual sex, then you are acknowledging the risk that you might get pregnant. Period. It is common knowledge that birth control isn't infallible and using it doesn't make you immune to potential consequences of those actions. You have sex, you're taking the risk. You don't have the right to take a life because you don't like the outcome of your actions.

If I choose to steal a car and get caught, I'm not going to like going to prison, but it's going to happen.

Interesting. Instead of saying, well contraception is 99% effective and we were using it right without any intentions for a child and oops it messed up, you say well you took that 1% risk and that's on you.

 

[gimmepie]

Interesting. Instead of saying, well contraception is 99% effective and we were using it right without any intentions for a child and oops it messed up, you say well you took that 1% risk and that's on you.

Well yeah, pretty much. I think that whenever you take a personal risk, even if it's minimal, if something bad happens it is on you. Just because the chance is small, it's not something that should be considered invalid.

 

[Neil Peart]

Yes, it really is that black and white. If you have consensual sex, then you are acknowledging the risk that you might get pregnant. Period. It is common knowledge that birth control isn't infallible and using it doesn't make you immune to potential consequences of those actions. You have sex, you're taking the risk. You don't have the right to take a life because you don't like the outcome of your actions.

So basically, are you stating that people shouldn't be allowed to abort just because they don't want the kid?

 

[gimmepie]

So basically, are you stating that people shouldn't be allowed to abort just because they don't want the kid?

That's what I've been saying the entire time. If the mothers life is in danger or something I get it, but if you just don't want to be a parent it's a ridiculous notion.

 

[Fannie]

If I choose to steal a car and get caught, I'm not going to like going to prison, but it's going to happen.

I do see your point, but this is very different to sex. Pregnancy is a possible result of having sex, an urge the majority of us naturally have. If you steal a car there's a 100% chance you're commiting a crime and less of us have a natural urge to commit it.

 

[Neil Peart]

That's what I've been saying the entire time. If the mothers life is in danger or something I get it, but if you just don't want to be a parent it's a ridiculous notion.

Her body, her choice. That's all I have left to say regarding this category.

 

[gimmepie]

I do see your point, but this is very different to sex. Pregnancy is a possible result of having sex, an urge the majority of us naturally have. If you steal a car there's a 100% chance you're commiting a crime and less of us have a natural urge to commit it.

They are both choices with potential repercussions. I think it is a pretty valid comparison.

 

[Nah]

They are both choices with potential repercussions. I think it is a pretty valid comparison.

I'm not sure I'd call it a valid comparison. One is undoubtedly a crime while the other is not. I'm not sure why you keep comparing consensual sex to criminal activity really. I also wouldn't say that "but if you just don't want to be a parent it's a ridiculous notion." It's hardly ridiculous to me really. Like I said before, child rearing is one hell of a task and commitment. Pregnancy and childbirth is not a great experience at all. Why should we force the parents+child to suffer through all that?

 

[gimmepie]

I'm not sure I'd call it a valid comparison. One is undoubtedly a crime while the other is not. I'm not sure why you keep comparing consensual sex to criminal activity really. I also wouldn't say that "but if you just don't want to be a parent it's a ridiculous notion." It's hardly ridiculous to me really. Like I said before, child rearing is one hell of a task and commitment. Pregnancy and childbirth is not a great experience at all. Why should we force the parents+child to suffer through all that?

Well let's compare it to something legal shall we?
You choose to drink, you do damage to your liver. Do you get to kill the person who served you?

You don't have the right to end a life simply because you don't want to be a parent, put the child up for adoption. You don't want to run the risk of experiencing pregnancy and birth, don't have sex.