Abortion

[Xenoce]

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.

Once again, you're basing your arguement on what the fetus could be, not what it is.

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

Not intelligent per se, but intelligence is in the gamut of things you should have. Namely, emotion, sentience, and intelligence all count. Find me an example of an emotionless, non-sentient, non-thinking thing with rights.

(BTW, what's the pic in your sig say? I can't make it out.)

 

[Undead Cheese]

Once again, you're basing your arguement on what the fetus could be, not what it is.

I didn't say what a fetus could be. I said that a fetus is part of our normal growth cycle, unlike a finger/toenail, which is a fact.

Not intelligent per se, but intelligence is in the gamut of things you should have. Namely, emotion, sentience, and intelligence all count. Find me an example of an emotionless, non-sentient, non-thinking thing with rights.

I'm not arguing about how they'e viewed in the law today (that's Tipsy's field). I'm arguing about how it should be. Why should you need emotion and intelligence to be protected?

(BTW, what's the pic in your sig say? I can't make it out.)

If you kill me
I might die ...

 

[CelestialBadger]

Why should you need emotion and intelligence to be protected?

If that's your basis for right to life then why is only human life considered significant?

 

[Undead Cheese]

If that's your basis for right to life then why is only human life considered significant?

Because I just feel humans are more important than (insert random animal here). It isn't hard to understand.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Anybody know where tipsy went? I feel like arguing with him again.

As for this topic...I think it has been officially beaten to a pulp. I say now we let this die until somebody else (like me) rezzes it again.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Yep, I believe there is no point arguing in thois topic since no one is willing to admit the other party was right...
I mean this topic is all about circular speeches just saying the same thing over and over again...
Just let it stay... for a while

Well, talking about potential, one Ox; they are strong and have the potential to pull heavy things... so let's just don't kill any more oxes because we are ending potential...
But the dodos didn't do anything (had no potential) so, it's ok to have terminated their specie at ease...lmao

 

[CelestialBadger]

Because I just feel humans are more important than (insert random animal here). It isn't hard to understand.

Well I feel they aren't. Oh shit...how do you respond to that??

 

[Undead Cheese]

Well I feel they aren't. Oh shit...how do you respond to that??

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[CelestialBadger]

And you're entitled to make laws based on your opinions...?

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Because I just feel humans are more important than (insert random animal here). It isn't hard to understand.

Why are humans more important in the first place? I've never understood that...so maybe it is hard to understand. Not to get too off topic...but I much rather push a dog out of the way from traffic than a human.

 

[Undead Cheese]

And you're entitled to make laws based on your opinions...?

We're humans, and, therefore, our laws are designed to protect humans. (with some exceptions)

 

[CelestialBadger]

My final argument for abortion is that if you had been aborted I wouldn't have been subjected to this shitty argument. There, I'm done with this thread.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

lol Yes I can imagine a world were you were abrted...(to rebate that argument of 'Oh, I can't imagine if my mother didn't had me...')
Well I can imagine if your mother hadn't had you*goes away with a dreamy glaze in his eyes...*

 

[Undead Cheese]

(to rebate that argument of 'Oh, I can't imagine if my mother didn't had me...')

You can challenge it all you want, but it doesn't matter since no one's said it recently (if at all).

 

[Lizardbreath]

If it's not in the constitution it means nothing according to tipsy.

 

[AZN_FLEA]

an indirest form of murder is what abortion is. you could save a life by using a condom

 

[Tipsy]

And you thought that this thread was over and done with. Time to respond to the last two pages.

Plyler vs Doe doesn't apply to fetuses, just so that's cleared up. Would you mind explaining again directly quoting the Constitution + court cases that actually apply why abortion is illegal?

For this point, I am trying to prove to Lizardbreath that all humans have equal rights, whether they are citizens, legal aliens, or illegal aliens. As I have stated before my argument goes under the assumption that an unborn baby is infact a human being until anyone can explain to me why it is not. For a refresher sense it hasn't been posted since one of my last posts, here is why I believe an unborn baby is a human being:

1) He/She is alive, the unborn baby can reproduce his own cells and develop them - meaning if it is alive, it is not dead.
2) He/She is completely human in its characteristics, including the well pointed out 46 human chromosomes.
3) Nothing new will be added to the unborn baby from the time the sperm enters the egg to the time the unborn baby dies as an old man/woman.

You're defining a "generation" as starting at conception. Let's look at what Webster says:
1 a : a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor b : a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously

Thus the preamble states that the purpose of the Constitution is to provide liberty to those born in the future.

Though the first definition would apply to mine as well. An unborn baby is also a living being constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor. So looks like it means both of these things. It means both a body of living beings constituting a single step in the line of descent from an ancestor or a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously.

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

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.

I don't see where it removes the consitution guarenteeing life.

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.

Some people with mental conditions can barely do that themselves, maybe we should kill them too.

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?

How about instead of just killing unwanted babies, we also kill everyone who does not benefit from society. Instead of fixing social security, how about we just kill everyone who would be using it, it would create a better quality of life for everyone. Point of this, if this is your reasoning why only kill unwanted babies?

This basically answers everything said in the last few pages, if you haven't been directly quoted it is answered in response to another quote.

 

[Xenoce]

I've come to a solid (for myself) conclusion to the abortion debates that will sway virtually nobody, but is the last step in the arguement for me.

I do not consider human "life" at all valuable. Nor do I consider any other form of "life" valuable. It's the conciousness that I value. The mind. The emotion.

Most people would say they don't agree with me, but they do in their actions. It's a guiding principal for virtually every person on the planet.

Why value humans higher then animals? Because we can think on a level that they can't.

Why do we have no qualms about clearing away mold, about trimming a plant, when most would abhore doing the same things to a loved pet? Becuase the mold/plant have no mind, no level of intelligence, cannot feel anything. (I won't get into a debate about weather or not plants can "feel" or molds can "think") A dog has some observable level of intelligence, can feel affection for us, and, in turn, we it.

You may say that this leads to arguements that killing off the mentally handicapped is a good thing. I'd not deny it, but someone with down syndrome still has a mind. The only mental handicap that's allowable to kill somoene for is complete vegitation- i.e. braindeath.

As such, while a fetus is still human- Even though I'd only call it potential, you cannot argue that it has a mind any more then you can argue a plant has a mind. While it may very well be human- Until it has some level of conciousness, it's just as much property as is some kids science-fair mold project.

IMO, there is nothing more importiant then the mind, and without that, you have nothing.

 

[Tipsy]

The thing is, in the society we live in today, as soon as you are 'human', which to me I stated with that three point thing, your are given rights in this world, and one of those are to life. Though what you are saying makes total sense from a completely secular view, society really isn't secular today, and a society like one the "Brave New World" (if anyone has ever read that book) would be needed for a perfect society according to secular logic. Though I understand what you are saying, my entire argument is based on the Constitution of the United States and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the United Nations which is held more important in today's society over any single man's opinion.

 

[Xenoce]

Tipsy- that's a rather dirty tactic to compare that which you're arguing against with something like Brave New World. It's absolutely not nessicary for a completely secular society.

And religion should play no part in the goverment. It's been written, said, and quoted many times by many of the crafters of the US gov't that the government is to remain free from religious control. It's based on secular logic. While the society that created it is not secular, the society is not the government, not the gov't the society.

If there are flaws in the constitution, they need to be fixed. It's a living document, and prone to well-thought out change.