Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by byteshertz

 

Then you're being really really ignorant because you're afraid to admit potentiality is key here.

No I am saying potentially leaves room for doubt - just like this pile of cells could potentially amount to nothing.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by WhiteHat

 

Sorry, but the social code is a forced moral code. Morals have no place in law nor society. Most people do not keep quite and mind their own business. but you have no legal right to force me not to keep quite and mind my own business. This is called national socialism. And hopefully you remember what it lead to.

Freedom of choice came with sex. It's as simple as that. She choice to ignore the fact that without protection she will have a child. Freedom over her body does not cover what isn't. A fetus is its own body.

edit on 25-2-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Common, let's be humans a little bit, would you? I've told you, theoretically you are right. But people are people, and will always be. Stupid, unaware, irresponsible. Especially today. Teens having sex has nothing to do with choice; they're no more aware of consequences than horny cats on the street. Their stupid actions will result in just another street kid who eventually will do the same some 18 years later; is that ok with you? Is that a viable solution? As a human being, I mean. If it does, than that's the end of discussion; no one can force compassion into you.

Isn't the situation of our society today enough proof that punishing people for being people is not working? We need to be practical. Law isn't everything; if a woman wants to terminate her pregnancy, she will do it no matter what you and I will say, no matter what the law will say. Drug market can prove you that. Wouldn't it be smarter to offer her a more attractive solution than abortion? Wouldn't be better to have less abandoned kids, than more?

But again, this is your opinion of what is best. I didn't mean to keep you quiet; I meant that the moment you try to interfere with other's rights, you should take responsibility for the consequences; which consequences are in this case abandoned kids.

Regarding the issue of abortion in the abstract; no one should tell a woman what to do to her body and anything that grows within her body. Likewise for any man. Men cannot get pregnant, so they should act only as advisors and providers. A woman's right to choose may make some sad (both men and women) and surely we needn't invoke the "back alley" scenario.

To protect the health of women and children, the right to choose must be protected as per Roe v. Wade. It is incumbent upon the society of those who are aware to choose responsibly, hopefully before the fact.

Termination of pregnancy must remain the choice between a woman's personal beliefs and the recommendation of a medical doctor.

Where are all the people who want to fund the initiative needed to educate rather than dictate? What will happen when women end up in emergency rooms with sepsis from non-sterile equipment to terminate a pregnancy (abortion) at home or wherever?

I don't see religion as relevant to the imaginary debate as to a woman's right to choose. She (and he) would have to live with their own consequences.

reply to post by Gorman91


No, we dont have to have a method. I am just pointing out that the REASON why we protect the body cells now is ONLY because we want to protect the mind that depends on them, and we are unable to do it differently. From that follows that there is simply no reason to protect cells with no depending mind attached (embryos).

reply to post by WhiteHat


No, I don't think I will be. Laws exist for the very reason that being human is against them.

If people are stupid and irresponsible, then they have to learn at some point. Comforting them and letting them delete their mistakes is a failure of epic proportions to fix that problem.

Most people born today will never amount to anything. They will never do anything but breed, buy, and bust. They will never learn more than their most basic education and never amount to more than a slave. Globally, few will ever go to college. Fewer still will ever use what they learn there. less than 1% of the population will ever be more than robotics.

But, as the saying goes, a thousand Hitlers are worth the man who cures cancer.

I really don't care about the lot that is life. We all die anyway. It is laws that allow everyone to have equal play.

And that's not an opinion. That's simple freedom for all. Suck it up. 995 of people will never be anything. And they have the same rights and privileges as the less than 1% that actually make something of themselves. Don't like it? Drop your elitism at the door please. It's not welcomed on spaceship Earth.

reply to post by Maslo


Then as stated, nobody has the right to be protected until those cells reach their true human potential long after birth.

This is called active eugenics. And is frowned upon is most societies.

You act on potentials, not what something is now. As I stated above. 99% of people will never be more than educated animals doing their daily jobs. but they are just as human as that

reply to post by byteshertz


Then, if beyond reasonable doubt, they have potential for more, they have rights to go there. If they turn out to be invalid beyond reasonable doubt, delete them. Really simple, you see.

reply to post by snowbunny414


Choice was given when they chose to have sex. If its' rape it's different.

If we were to extend your argument to all possibilities, then really nobody has the right to exist as we are destroying all other life on Earth.

reply to post by Gorman91

Then as stated, nobody has the right to be protected until those cells reach their true human potential long after birth.

How it follows from what I have said?

I have said the reason for protection is only the presence of the mind (regardless of its quality). Late fetuses and newborns certainly have mind (sentience). So they are protected. No potential argument there at all.

You act on potentials, not what something is now. As I stated above.

I dont. Either something is sentient now, then it deserves protection, or it is not, then dont.

As I stated above. 99% of people will never be more than educated animals doing their daily jobs

Higher animals are not sentient?

Ergo, potential to become human is the only thing that matters

Then we should outlaw contraception or even refusing sex, since it also prevents potential humans from existing, that would otherwise exist.

Posting this that was posted in my thread by Dendro - I have to go to sleep now but will be back on tomorrow to counter your posts

Originally posted by Dendro
This is an article from my philosophy class.

A Defense of Abortion - JJ Thomson

Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.

She presents you with some hypothetical situations/thought experiments.

edit on 25-2-2011 by Dendro because: Forgot about external

reply to post by byteshertz


Again, personhood. Culture specific non-constant term. Not viable for law making.

I reject it all and go with genetics. The only truly scientific measure of a human being. I honestly have no care for what a person is from those genes. Just that those genes are in fact derived from a human being.

In fact, most people are not equal. A person with one skill is worth more than a person without. Therefore there is no legal basis nor term.

Judges just interpret. And most of which are from an era a whole generation prior, with education less than sufficient to judge. This is why changes occur a generation after a fact is known. Slavery being one example, censorship another, and many others throughout US history.

Simply put, laws become invalid if scientific proof puts them down. If they still exist is simply irrelevant. They will change with time as old judges die and new updated ones are put in.


Your argument is still flawed because it is a dependency. Rejecting personhood as a viable argument is scientifically sound. Science based off variables is fail.

reply to post by Maslo


Then again, as I have kept saying, nothing is "human" in terms of sentience until around age 4-7. Thus your argument is flawed.

contraceptives counter what has not yet happened. Like stated before, potential begins at its creation. If you count on its pre-creation potential, then you're not alive until you create something that's not alive until it creates something that's not alive... failed circular logic.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by WhiteHat

 

If people are stupid and irresponsible, then they have to learn at some point. Comforting them and letting them delete their mistakes is a failure of epic proportions to fix that problem.

Well, that's what I'm saying; teach them first, and punish after that. And don't get so heated, it's just a discussion.

I really don't care about the lot that is life. We all die anyway. It is laws that allow everyone to have equal play.

Well, this will change when you'll happen to die, or someone close to you, and no law will be there to comfort you, but maybe some stupid people. But that's another subject, and it's your choice what you care for.

And that's not an opinion. That's simple freedom for all.

All right, but you didn't answer about the women' rights and freedom. Or are you selective in your freedoms?

reply to post by Gorman91

Then again, as I have kept saying, nothing is "human" in terms of sentience until around age 4-7. Thus your argument is flawed.

It doesnt have to be "human" in terms of sentience, whatever you mean by it. Just sentient is enough.

reply to post by WhiteHat


It's not punishment. it's simple responsibility. The fact that you call that punishment shows your overall flaw. responsibility is not punishment. It's living with what you did because you did a dumb dumb. Weather that becomes a good thing or bad thing is what you choose to do in response.

The law should not care about dead people. it's for living people. And many have died near me. I did not cry for them. I have religious beliefs that I've seen more than enough proof to confirm. But this is not a basis to look at society nor govern and make laws. Only one for personal choice.

Sure I did answer the woman's rights and freedoms. The woman and man have the right and choice to use protection, and to know the risks of sex. Their failure to adhere to that is where their choice is. You have no right to terminate the product of that perfectly legit legal pleasure seeking and liberty to have sex. If there was a rape involved, that's completely different.

reply to post by Maslo


No, because being human is what's relevant to the laws human make.

Human is what matters. Not being human is irrelevant. But then again, if you can get me an intelligent alien, we'd have to talk then.

reply to post by Gorman91

contraceptives counter what has not yet happened. Like stated before, potential begins at its creation.

Just as system called "embryo" has a potential to create human person if certain conditions are met and certain are not met, so a system called "man and woman" equally has a potential to create human person if certain conditions are met and certain are not met. It doesnt really matter if those conditions both systems depend on to accomplish it are active (having sex) or passive (do not having an abortion), since otherwise we would be suffering from omission bias fallacy.

The omission bias is an alleged type of cognitive bias. It is the tendency to judge harmful actions as worse, or less moral than equally harmful omissions (inactions).

Abortion (action) results in potential human being not appearing which would otherwise probably appear, not having sex (inaction) or using contraception (action) also results in the same thing - potential human being not appearing which would otherwise probably appear. Thus the ultimate consequence is the same, so for a consequentialist, these things must be equivalent.

reply to post by Maslo


Yea I really don't honestly care about this stuff. Fact is that if potential is there then it deserves protection, This silliness you brought up has nothing to do with that, nor proving this line of logic wrong, with which you continue to fail to do so, as you've not yet provided why it is wrong.

Fact is an instance is nothing. Nothing is valuable in that instance. It's always the derivative. In a single second a human is no more valuable than a moon rock.

reply to post by Gorman91

The woman and man have the right and choice to use protection, and to know the risks of sex. Their failure to adhere to that is where their choice is. You have no right to terminate the product of that perfectly legit legal pleasure seeking and liberty to have sex.

Well, that's the whole point; if I am a woman, and there's a fetus inside me, I think that theoretically I have all the rights to do whatever I want with it. A fetus is not public property; a woman's body is not a rented machine who's purpose is to host future generations. She have a will, you know, and a right to use her body the way she wants. And if she doesn't want to use it for the benefits of another life, it's her choice. Maybe is not a good choice to abort it, but the woman will live with her choice, and no one else. The question is if somebody like you can tell a woman what to do with her body, and why you think you have that right. That's all.

reply to post by WhiteHat


Well aren't you saying the same with regards to forcing me to care about society?


Fact is this. What does being inside a body have to do with it being human or not? Rape or life threatening is all that matters.

Arguably, what you do with that body ends where the next one begins.

Laws at their core are not to stop people from doing something, but to point out what is wrong. You can't force people not to kill. but you can say it's wrong, and most will comply.