Debate: How do you feel about abortions?

[lx_theo]

Life is an idea. Its one like language or music. In the end, while we can attempt to define it to definite as much as we want, it'll never be done. Languages are spoken however the speaker chooses, and music preference has some of the greatest variety there is.

Science has sparked many, many theories on a way to find a definitive definition to life. Everyone has failed in one way or another. Life is a subjective idea, and not one restrictable by scientific research or law.

 

[Dawn]

Life is an idea. Its one like language or music. In the end, while we can attempt to define it to definite as much as we want, it'll never be done. Languages are spoken however the speaker chooses, and music preference has some of the greatest variety there is.

Science has sparked many, many theories on a way to find a definitive definition to life. Everyone has failed in one way or another. Life is a subjective idea, and not one restrictable by scientific research or law.

Hah. I was immediately reminded of ICP's Miracles.

https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm This definition of whether something is alive or not seems to disagree with you. Oh, and just incase you hadn't noticed, we're talking about whether things qualify as a human being now, not whether they're alive. It's pretty much straight forward 100% provable that a fetus is alive.

 

[The Trotsky]

No one is questioning the fact that fetuses are living things PkMnTrainer Yellow, it's whether or not they are people that matters. It is pretty much inherently obvious that a fetus is not yet a human being, on account of a lack of ability to reason, feel, think, or communicate.

 

[Livewire]

Hah. I was immediately reminded of ICP's Miracles.

https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm This definition of whether something is alive or not seems to disagree with you. Oh, and just incase you hadn't noticed, we're talking about whether things qualify as a human being now, not whether they're alive. It's pretty much straight forward 100% provable that a fetus is alive.

Cite something official for a change, please. The American Journal of Medicine, articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, anything. Some random article from what looks like a kindergartener's website won't prove your claim that abortion is morally and reprehensibly evil. I've seen more scholastic material on Jersey Shore.

 

[Dawn]

No one is questioning the fact that fetuses are living things PkMnTrainer Yellow, it's whether or not they are people that matters. It is pretty much inherently obvious that a fetus is not yet a human being, on account of a lack of ability to reason, feel, think, or communicate.

Er... well... theo was, but yeah. Anyway.

So, under these conditions, people in some types of comas are also not human beings, for they cannot reason, feel, think, or communicate as they have lost conciousness.

I don't think these conditions work very well. Then again, you could always try refining them.

 

[Gulpin]

I don't think that abortion is in any right acceptable. If our society sees abortion as okay, then we might as well go around shooting each other because that is what abortion effectively is.

 

[Esper]

Er... well... theo was, but yeah. Anyway.

So, under these conditions, people in some types of comas are also not human beings, for they cannot reason, feel, think, or communicate as they have lost conciousness.

I don't think these conditions work very well. Then again, you could always try refining them.

Well, coma patients have demonstrated their human-ness before they were put into comas. I guess in that sense it's a kind of no-take-backs on being called human. Once a human, always a human. The when-do-we-first-call-it-human question is still open for fetuses.

Let me ask this: If science even could answer the question, would it be wrong to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies while we wait for science to answer something that could take years, decades, whole lifetimes, just because we're unsure?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

"A person", not a fetus.

Kinda funny how the Government can, and does, deprive a person of life. Capital punishment says hi.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life... without due process of law"
People who are executed are given a trial under the rule of law, and have extensive options for appeal. This is called due process of law; thus, their sentences are justified legally even if I am personally opposed to the death penalty. When is the unborn child given its day in court before it is deprived of life?

 

[Livewire]

I don't think that abortion is in any right acceptable. If our society sees abortion as okay, then we might as well go around shooting each other because that is what abortion effectively is.

No, it's not. If you strongly believe that, then go try it. And then get smacked with a prison term or worse.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life... without due process of law"
People who are executed are given a trial under the rule of law, and have extensive options for appeal. This is called due process of law; thus, their sentences are justified legally even if I am personally opposed to the death penalty. When is the unborn child given its day in court before it is deprived of life?

It doesn't have due process because it isn't a human being yet.

 

[Gulpin]

No, it's not. If you strongly believe that, then go try it. And then get smacked with a prison term or worse.

I think it is the exact same. Why should it be perfectly fine to kill an innocent person, and even worse, one that has absolutley no method of defence?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

No, it's not. If you strongly believe that, then go try it. And then get smacked with a prison term or worse.



It doesn't have due process because it isn't a human being yet.

According to the State of California, that has a law against fetal homicide (btw the definition of homicide is "the unlawful killing of a human being), the fetus is a human being.

 

[Livewire]

I think it is the exact same. Why should it be perfectly fine to kill an innocent person, and even worse, one that has absolutley no method of defence?

It's not a person. A person can walk, talk, can love, can hate, can vote, can take out the trash,pay its taxes, etc. A jumbled mass of half-formed organ systems and rudimentary nervous system cannot defend itself, because it can't live on its own. So, it is not a person, yet. Once it is born, then it becomes a person, with a social security number, a birth certificate, a cute little paper note with foot and finger prints on it, etc.

According to the State of California, that has a law against fetal homicide (btw the definition of homicide is "the unlawful killing of a human being), the fetus is a human being.

That's California. Roe V. Wade, and the federal precedent established by it, trumps your state ruling via the Supremacy Clause.

 

[Freedom Fighter N]

I don't think that abortion is in any right acceptable. If our society sees abortion as okay, then we might as well go around shooting each other because that is what abortion effectively is.

Haha, thanks for a good laugh. Flawed logic.
Ever thought how it feels to carry something you don't even want inside of ya?

Now I totally understand what you meant but it's still flawed.

Well, coma patients have demonstrated their human-ness before they were put into comas. I guess in that sense it's a kind of no-take-backs on being called human. Once a human, always a human. The when-do-we-first-call-it-human question is still open for fetuses.

Let me ask this: If science even could answer the question, would it be wrong to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies while we wait for science to answer something that could take years, decades, whole lifetimes, just because we're unsure?

As for your question.. science will probably figure it out, it's the woman's choice.
I mean, do we really know if women belong in the kitchen? No, but maybe science will find the answer to that equalation. In the meantime, we would just dump women in the kitchen. What could be so wrong with that?

No, it's not. If you strongly believe that, then go try it. And then get smacked with a prison term or worse.



It doesn't have due process because it isn't a human being yet.

Why are you even arguing with someone with flawed logic?
He's like, saying 2 + 2 = 7.
I do understand his point, but there is a difference. Too bad I have problems putting my thoughts into words, otherwise I coulda explained it quite clearly. Again I understand him but my mind just tells me "No freaking way".

I think it is the exact same. Why should it be perfectly fine to kill an innocent person, and even worse, one that has absolutley no method of defence?

Right right. And the West Bank is under Israeli conquest while those Israeli murderers lay siege on the poor Palestinians.



Well, my bottom line:
I think we can't really reach a conclusion here. One side claims it's wrong because it is a human being, and the other claims it's okay/up to the woman because it's a yet-to-be developed human being. It's like signing a peace treaty but not agreeing to any of the rules that the treaty has.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

It's not a person. A person can walk, talk, can love, can hate, can vote, can take out the trash,pay its taxes, etc. A jumbled mass of half-formed organ systems and rudimentary nervous system cannot defend itself, because it can't live on its own. So, it is not a person, yet. Once it is born, then it becomes a person, with a social security number, a birth certificate, a cute little paper note with foot and finger prints on it, etc.



That's California. Roe V. Wade, and the federal precedent established by it, trumps your state ruling via the Supremacy Clause.

So, are you conceding that the California fetal homicide law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause and the killing of an unborn child is not homicide?

 

[lx_theo]

Hah. I was immediately reminded of ICP's Miracles.

https://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bio99/bio99171.htm This definition of whether something is alive or not seems to disagree with you. Oh, and just incase you hadn't noticed, we're talking about whether things qualify as a human being now, not whether they're alive. It's pretty much straight forward 100% provable that a fetus is alive.

Uh-huh. Fyi, I'm going into engineering, am atheist for reasons of logical inaccuracies, adn have been a scientific minded person all my life, so don't pull that stuff on me.

There is a difference between the measurable universe we see around us and the concepts we plant within it. What we understand as life is among the latter. The chemical phenomenon that is studied through biology is but a way of describing how it functions and works. The idea of life being something more than chemicals and systems that make us up is a concept implanted by us. These ideas are not held in a purely scientific discussion.

And as I've said before, that link is in no way absolute. There are many more "definitions" of life that can be found on the internet from just as if not more credible sources. Here, I'll give you one article that goes over some ( https://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/344/defining-life )

 

[Gulpin]

It's not a person. A person can walk, talk, can love, can hate, can vote, can take out the trash,pay its taxes, etc. A jumbled mass of half-formed organ systems and rudimentary nervous system cannot defend itself, because it can't live on its own. So, it is not a person, yet. Once it is born, then it becomes a person, with a social security number, a birth certificate, a cute little paper note with foot and finger prints on it, etc.



That's California. Roe V. Wade, and the federal precedent established by it, trumps your state ruling via the Supremacy Clause.

So someone that is in a coma isn't actually a person? Because last time I checked they couldn't walk, talk, love, hate, vote, do chores, or pay taxes. Someone that is a vegetable isn't actually a person? That is where your logic is wrong. Some elderly people can't live on their own, so it is okay just to murder them? I don't think it should be. Just because a person is currently in a coma doesn't mean that he/she wont ever come out of it. Just because an unborn baby is living inside of a woman doesn't mean that it wont ever be born. Also, it is a sad thing that your definition of a person is a social security number and a birth certificate, because with that excuse I know some people that, under your definition, arent people.

 

[The Trotsky]

Er... well... theo was, but yeah. Anyway.

So, under these conditions, people in some types of comas are also not human beings, for they cannot reason, feel, think, or communicate as they have lost conciousness.

I don't think these conditions work very well. Then again, you could always try refining them.

By your definition of life, they aren't even living creatures. So I mean, good effort on the propaganda technique of victory by technicality, but irrelevant. It's understood that once something is a human being, it stays that way until death/decomposition

I don't think that abortion is in any right acceptable. If our society sees abortion as okay, then we might as well go around shooting each other because that is what abortion effectively is.

Trolololol. That is no way what abortion effectively is. Please read all of the arguments on the pages before your post.

According to the State of California, that has a law against fetal homicide (btw the definition of homicide is "the unlawful killing of a human being), the fetus is a human being.

Please stop quoting California state law. It is irrelevant. In California, medical marijuana is legal, but federal agents can shut down all of the operations if they chose to. In a small town in Colorado, recreational weed use is legal. It does not really matter, because everything is trumped by federal law. Please start using relevant information. Thanks.

 

[Gulpin]

By your definition of life, they aren't even living creatures. So I mean, good effort on the propaganda technique of victory by technicality, but irrelevant. It's understood that once something is a human being, it stays that way until death/decomposition



Trolololol. That is no way what abortion effectively is. Please read all of the arguments on the pages before your post.



Please stop quoting California state law. It is irrelevant. In California, medical marijuana is legal, but federal agents can shut down all of the operations if they chose to. In a small town in Colorado, recreational weed use is legal. It does not really matter, because everything is trumped by federal law. Please start using relevant information. Thanks.

Reading arguments wouldn't have changed my opinion on abortions.

 

[The Trotsky]

Reading arguments wouldn't have changed my opinion on abortions.

Then I'm sorry you will continuing living in blissful ignorance on the difference between a medically conducted abortion and homicide by deadly weapon. You'll get 'em next time champ :)

So someone that is in a coma isn't actually a person? Because last time I checked they couldn't walk, talk, love, hate, vote, do chores, or pay taxes. Someone that is a vegetable isn't actually a person? That is where your logic is wrong. Some elderly people can't live on their own, so it is okay just to murder them? I don't think it should be. Just because a person is currently in a coma doesn't mean that he/she wont ever come out of it. Just because an unborn baby is living inside of a woman doesn't mean that it wont ever be born. Also, it is a sad thing that your definition of a person is a social security number and a birth certificate, because with that excuse I know some people that, under your definition, arent people.

It's fairly well understood that once someone becomes a person, that status will not be revoked before death. And stop taking every argument literally. Hyperbole and contextual arguments are beautiful things.

 

[aruchan]

According to the State of California, that has a law against fetal homicide (btw the definition of homicide is "the unlawful killing of a human being), the fetus is a human being.

Let me play devil's advocate. Let's say that abortion is the killing of a human being. It's legal, per Roe v. Wade. So, by that merit, it is not homicide. QED

I think abortion should be the woman's choice, as it is her body. I think it's better to abort the fetus than to have it suffer through adoption or various other woes, and for teens a pregnancy can ruin their lives.