Abortion

[Undead Cheese]

Has little if any relevance too the topic. But yet you say it is backing. So please quit spamming this thread with your irrelevant BS. It's only making you look worse.

Just because you don't understand his arguments doesn't mean they are spam/irrelevent. Again, we have already given up trying to get this fact through your thick skull.

When it says "future generations" it means generations that are going to be born and live fruitful lives. There is nothing in future generations that has to deal with pre-natal generations.

One of the definitions of generation (since you love the dictionary so much):
A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism

Hmm ... Sounds like a fetus fits that definition perfectly!

-Against your posterity argument
pos·ter·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-str-t)
n.
1. all of the offspring of a given progenitor
2. all future generations

-Now lets go on and look up offspring.

off·spring ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôfsprng, f-)
n. pl. offspring

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.
3. A result; a product.

3. Progeny
prog·e·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-n)
n. pl. progeny or prog·e·nies

1. One born of, begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant.
2. Offspring or descendants considered as a group.
3. A result of creative effort; a product

We've already shown you why this argument doesn't work. I have highlighted the part you skipped over. (again ... who would've thought?)

 

[Lizardbreath]

Just because you don't understand his arguments doesn't mean they are spam/irrelevent. Again, we have already given up trying to get this fact through your thick skull.


One of the definitions of generation (since you love the dictionary so much):
A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism

Hmm ... Sounds like a fetus fits that definition perfectly!


We've already shown you why this argument doesn't work. I have highlighted the part you skipped over. (again ... who would've thought?)

Aaah but you are forgetting the relevancy. When the constitution was written it was not written for pre-natal rights. And until you show me a document where it says one of the founding fathers said "We give fetus's pre-natal rights" then arguing for it is void.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

first: if your going to take such large ammounts of the US constitution, dont just use HUGE CHUNKS...

second: So what if its outdated? Premarital sex is much more common today, do you think the church should change the bible to accomidate? do you think the constitution should accomidate any way the wind blows?

third: Are you aware the stem cell research grant in california? and dont make bets and guesses as to what a person says and apply them as fact. Just ask, what is your view on abortion then?

What i have to ask of you is:

1) whats your name mean

2) what happend to your argument about voting for "doofus" bush and that he personally causes MILLIONS of deaths of civilians/soldiers because of the iraq war?

3) How about people just stop murdering? i know it may seem like something that will never happen but, think about it, no more death penalty needed whatsoever. If people were just not stupid/arrogant/ignorant, there wouldnt be so many murders a year. thougths?

4) do you have any idea what creating a democracy(?) in iraq did to the middle east ATM?

1) My name means something that as no sense in English so, let it be...

2)That argument I did not maintained it because was off topic (i've been warned by one fo the mods...)

3) I believe people murder others (in most cases), because they have simply no education (in pure respecting the others terms) and mostly, because you (USA inhabitants) live in a fear invironment (the stuff that passes on your evening news and reallity shows is freaking!) and that's why there are 11,650 (around this number) murderers by fire arms in US per year!
Btw: In Portugal we had 12 last year.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Celestial, please understand that there is more than one definition of the word "generation." Here's another definition of the word for you, taken right from dictionary.com:

A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism

Seems to me like a fetus fits that definition perfectly.

Uhm...no. That definition doesn't even make sense in the context of the Preamble.

And TBS, shut the **** up. There's nothing in that list that supports your argument at all.

 

[Sogeking]

And TBS, shut the **** up. There's nothing in that list that supports your argument at all.

which list? the one from define.com or the one given to hommem maior? ok maybe i was wrong to post about the ones given to hommen, but the list from define.com, would you rather have everyone nitpicking different definitons or have a good collection of definitions availible just by scrolling up the page...

so why dont you stop flaming me. just say, where is the revelance betwen the posts to hommem maior and abortion? or same question except about definitions? thats not debating, thats flat out being an asshole and i do not think its something that should be allowed in as. Has tipsy and undead called lizardbreath a total dumbass, or have they been saying, your missing the point or that lizardbreath isnt reading the post fully. so stfu please.

 

[Lizardbreath]

which list? the one from define.com or the one given to hommem maior? ok maybe i was wrong to post about the ones given to hommen, but the list from define.com, would you rather have everyone nitpicking different definitons or have a good collection of definitions availible just by scrolling up the page...

so why dont you stop flaming me. just say, where is the revelance betwen the posts to hommem maior and abortion? or same question except about definitions? thats not debating, thats flat out being an asshole and i do not think its something that should be allowed in as. Has tipsy and undead called lizardbreath a total dumbass, or have they been saying, your missing the point or that lizardbreath isnt reading the post fully. so stfu please.

Whats funny is what they are accusing me of is what they are doing themselves.

 

[CelestialBadger]

which list? the one from define.com or the one given to hommem maior? ok maybe i was wrong to post about the ones given to hommen, but the list from define.com, would you rather have everyone nitpicking different definitons or have a good collection of definitions availible just by scrolling up the page...

so why dont you stop flaming me. just say, where is the revelance betwen the posts to hommem maior and abortion? or same question except about definitions? thats not debating, thats flat out being an asshole and i do not think its something that should be allowed in as. Has tipsy and undead called lizardbreath a total dumbass, or have they been saying, your missing the point or that lizardbreath isnt reading the post fully. so stfu please.

The general consensus is to post things that actually help your side. If I were a lazy dumbass like you I would just post a link to google and tell people to search for their own conflicting evidence.

And I agree that for the most part rudeness has no place in debate. However, I also believe that you're too stupid to debate.

 

[Sogeking]

The general consensus is to post things that actually help your side. If I were a lazy dumbass like you I would just post a link to google and tell people to search for their own conflicting evidence.

And I agree that for the most part rudeness has no place in debate. However, I also believe that you're too stupid to debate.

How much i care out of 10:

0.

anyways,

lizardbreath, some things are debatable to the point of redundency. Just saying the same thing over and over when the otherisde didnt agree the first time doesnt mean they are going to agree the second third and fourth.

 

[Xenoce]

Thinking through exactly why I am pro choice when abortion is such a horrible practice, I've come to a few conclusions:

1. I enjoy living, and wish to continue to do so.
2. I can only assume others feel the same way.
3. I would rather not have been aborted.

Now, this seems like a rather good case for pro-lifers, right? Wrong.

The trail of logic does not end there.

Were I, myself, aborted, I wouldn't care. So one only cares about such things after having been a living, thinking being.

I don't consider myself to have been a thinking being until the age of one-three.

I don't like the thought of be being aborted. Not for the abortion itself, but for my not being here. After all, who cares about a little glop of cells, right? It's the human it can become. It's potential.

So let's count the way that I wouldn't be here.

I also wouldn't be here if I were killed as an infant.
I also wouldn't be here if my birth went wrong.
I also wouldn't be here if my father got a visectomy before my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if contraception was used on the night of my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if my father/mother never met.

Or innumerable small factors that would've changed which sperm got through or which egg was released.

If any one of these factors were changed, the net result is the same, for me. I.E., I don't exist. I don't care which of these factors would've changed, it's all the same to me.

My potential for life existed before my conception, and I make no distinction between my patents not having sex, using contraception, or aborting me.

Using the logic that abortion destroys the potential human, well, so does not having unprotected sex. As does not having sex with everyone you can. As do many, many other things. And no distinction can be made, from the perspective of the aborted foetus. It does not have a mind. It cannot think, feel, or any other of the action we think of when we think of humans.

So the logic that abortion destroys a potential human is flawed, because so much else does as well, one of those is not having sex.

Therefore, aborting a foetus is on the same level of removing potential human life is the same level as all of the prevriosly mentioned things, from the prospective foetus. Which really removes all the anti-choice arguements.

(Just so you know, I didn't read the previous ten pages. I'll do that later. And by later, I mean I may never do it.)

 

[Lizardbreath]

Thinking through exactly why I am pro choice when abortion is such a horrible practice, I've come to a few conclusions:

1. I enjoy living, and wish to continue to do so.
2. I can only assume others feel the same way.
3. I would rather not have been aborted.

Now, this seems like a rather good case for pro-lifers, right? Wrong.

The trail of logic does not end there.

Were I, myself, aborted, I wouldn't care. So one only cares about such things after having been a living, thinking being.

I don't consider myself to have been a thinking being until the age of one-three.

I don't like the thought of be being aborted. Not for the abortion itself, but for my not being here. After all, who cares about a little glop of cells, right? It's the human it can become. It's potential.

So let's count the way that I wouldn't be here.

I also wouldn't be here if I were killed as an infant.
I also wouldn't be here if my birth went wrong.
I also wouldn't be here if my father got a visectomy before my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if contraception was used on the night of my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if my father/mother never met.

Or innumerable small factors that would've changed which sperm got through or which egg was released.

If any one of these factors were changed, the net result is the same, for me. I.E., I don't exist. I don't care which of these factors would've changed, it's all the same to me.

My potential for life existed before my conception, and I make no distinction between my patents not having sex, using contraception, or aborting me.

Using the logic that abortion destroys the potential human, well, so does not having unprotected sex. As does not having sex with everyone you can. As do many, many other things. And no distinction can be made, from the perspective of the aborted foetus. It does not have a mind. It cannot think, feel, or any other of the action we think of when we think of humans.

So the logic that abortion destroys a potential human is flawed, because so much else does as well, one of those is not having sex.

Therefore, aborting a foetus is on the same level of removing potential human life is the same level as all of the prevriosly mentioned things, from the prospective foetus. Which really removes all the anti-choice arguements.

(Just so you know, I didn't read the previous ten pages. I'll do that later. And by later, I mean I may never do it.)

Whats funny about this is that it is probably one of the more sound arguments I have heard. He has a point though...for the first year outside of the women you are basically dependent on your mother solely. You really only think about eat/sleep/poop.

 

[Undead Cheese]

So the obvious conclusion we can reach is to allow abortions until the infant is about 2 years old. Or not. Xenoce's entire string of logic falls apart, though, when we think of the fetus as a human instead of a potential human.

 

[CelestialBadger]

How much i care out of 10:

0.

Another quality argument. Good job.

 

[amrtin77]

So the obvious conclusion we can reach is to allow abortions until the infant is about 2 years old.

i see what your saying, but i think his main point was more of a rebuttal to the "how would you like to be aborted" argument. if you were aborted, you wouldnt exist to care. now how far you take it is up to you... maybe i could say if i killed you now, you wouldnt exist to care tomarrow.

i have no firm stance on abortion, and i would be willing to accept a specific time limit to when you become "human." after that you cannot be aborted, or it is murder. id like to say "your human when you have a functioning brain with concious thought," but i dont think i did much thinking when i was an infant. i can hardly say i "existed".

my main reason for leaning towards abortion, is it increases the quality of life for everyone. less overpopulation, no poor people having to worry about feeding babies, less kids growing up in poverty, ect. but the problem is, whose to say when we become human? right now ive been considered to be alive since the day i was born. not before. i came into existance march 25, 1988. but according to some of you guys, ive been human since sometime in 1987. your definition of existing seems to conflict the laws definition. are you "born" on your birthday? or are you in existance and deserving of rights sometime before that?

 

[Xenoce]

Actually, my point was two-fold.

The first is that you cannot think of the fetus as human, since it has no emotion, cannot recognize itself, and in short, cannot think. I think of it as akin to somoene in a permanant coma, with no chance of revival, sucking on life support. Quite possibly less then that. And no, I don't think you could kill a two-year old child and have it be the same. I support time limits, like say, no abortions after the third trimester. Because declaring the "when" of when a baby is sentient is like declaring legal age of drinking/voring. The best you can do is to place the limit far before the sentience of the fetus.

My second was that there are far more potential humans then exist or ever will exist. People remove that potential all the time, by, say, not having sex with whoever they can. Abortion cannot be singled out as an action removing that potential.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Thinking through exactly why I am pro choice when abortion is such a horrible practice, I've come to a few conclusions:

1. I enjoy living, and wish to continue to do so.
2. I can only assume others feel the same way.
3. I would rather not have been aborted.

Now, this seems like a rather good case for pro-lifers, right? Wrong.

The trail of logic does not end there.

Were I, myself, aborted, I wouldn't care. So one only cares about such things after having been a living, thinking being.

I don't consider myself to have been a thinking being until the age of one-three.

I don't like the thought of be being aborted. Not for the abortion itself, but for my not being here. After all, who cares about a little glop of cells, right? It's the human it can become. It's potential.

So let's count the way that I wouldn't be here.

I also wouldn't be here if I were killed as an infant.
I also wouldn't be here if my birth went wrong.
I also wouldn't be here if my father got a visectomy before my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if contraception was used on the night of my conception.
I also wouldn't be here if my father/mother never met.

Or innumerable small factors that would've changed which sperm got through or which egg was released.

If any one of these factors were changed, the net result is the same, for me. I.E., I don't exist. I don't care which of these factors would've changed, it's all the same to me.

My potential for life existed before my conception, and I make no distinction between my patents not having sex, using contraception, or aborting me.

Using the logic that abortion destroys the potential human, well, so does not having unprotected sex. As does not having sex with everyone you can. As do many, many other things. And no distinction can be made, from the perspective of the aborted foetus. It does not have a mind. It cannot think, feel, or any other of the action we think of when we think of humans.

So the logic that abortion destroys a potential human is flawed, because so much else does as well, one of those is not having sex.

Therefore, aborting a foetus is on the same level of removing potential human life is the same level as all of the prevriosly mentioned things, from the prospective foetus. Which really removes all the anti-choice arguements.

(Just so you know, I didn't read the previous ten pages. I'll do that later. And by later, I mean I may never do it.)

Yeah that vis the old sound and used argument of: 'I can't imagine if my parents haven't had me...' please give me a break...
I would rather not have kids if I knew I wouldn't be able to properly support them or give them a good social environment (and you Americans don't talk me about social security because yours doesn't work!). So, don't give me that crap... and accept the fact that to live in a democracy we must have the right to choose!!

 

[Undead Cheese]

The first is that you cannot think of the fetus as human, since it has no emotion, cannot recognize itself, and in short, cannot think.

None of which are requirements for being human.

I think of it as akin to somoene in a permanant coma, with no chance of revival, sucking on life support. Quite possibly less then that.

Are you saying a fetus has no chance of becomming sentient?

The best you can do is to place the limit far before the sentience of the fetus.

No, the best you can do is to place the limit before it becomes human (or, in otherwords, to outlaw abortion entirely)

My second was that there are far more potential humans then exist or ever will exist. People remove that potential all the time, by, say, not having sex with whoever they can. Abortion cannot be singled out as an action removing that potential.

There's a difference, though: A fetus has all 46 chromosomes that a human has, but sperm and eggs do not. That's why contraception and abstaining from sex aren't destroying any significant life.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Just a quick question that I was wondering about after reading:

That's why contraception and abstaining from sex aren't destroying any significant life.

What is "significant life"?

 

[Undead Cheese]

Significant life = human life.

 

[Xenoce]

None of which are requirements for being human.

It seems that by your definition, my finger is human. It's part of a human, with all the nessicary DNA as a human, but it's not. The fetus is a potential human, not human in itself.

Are you saying a fetus has no chance of becomming sentient?

No, I'm saying that you're counting on nothing but potential.

No, the best you can do is to place the limit before it becomes human (or, in otherwords, to outlaw abortion entirely)

What's so special about the specific moment in time when the egg is impregnated?

There's a difference, though: A fetus has all 46 chromosomes that a human has, but sperm and eggs do not. That's why contraception and abstaining from sex aren't destroying any significant life.

As does my toenail. Try to prevent me from grooming.

I'll try to put this as concisely as possible.

What makes humans and the "lower animals" different? What makes us special? While most answers will vary wildly, nobody can dispute that the primary difference is our intelligence. The fetus doesn't even have the intelligence of a dog. (I'll not get into debates of the intelligence of dogs.) It has the potential intelligence of anyone, but in it's current stage, it has nothing. It has no intelligence, emotion, or care as to what happens to it.

So the anti-choice arguement is based on potential. And, while the fetus is a potential sentient, intelligent human being, it also isn't one now, and thus, has no rights. It is nothing but a bundle of potential.

 

[Undead Cheese]

It seems that by your definition, my finger is human. It's part of a human, with all the nessicary DNA as a human, but it's not.

...

As does my toenail. Try to prevent me from grooming.

Neither your finger nor your toenail will ever be human. If you set a finger or a toenail aside, no matter how much you try to nurture them, they will never grow into a sentient being. A fetus is a part of the normal growth cycle in our lifetime. A finger/toenail is not.

So the anti-choice arguement is based on potential. And, while the fetus is a potential sentient, intelligent human being, it also isn't one now, and thus, has no rights. It is nothing but a bundle of potential.

So you have to be intelligent to have rights? Gotcha.