aaronburro would put a baby in a trashcan and Smath thinks babysitting is murder

7/7/2013 6:38:08 PM

so what happens as medical science advances, and premature babies can be kept alive younger and younger outside of the womb? Does that change the age at which it's "ok" to terminate an unborn baby? what about down the line when babies can progress from conception to "birth" without being in the womb at all?

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2013 6:53:08 PM

If we create artificial intelligence through computers should that be protected?

Those who see some kind of divination in a fertilized egg would probably say no. After all, it doesn't have the qualities of a human. This is why their position should be rejected - because it relies on magic. All living things have rights. Pro-lifers hold the contrary position.

We are arguing against people who want to protect cells on the basis of their ability to turn into something that feels, all the while willing to ignore animals that currently posses genuine feelings. If we have the ability to produce human-level AI within 20 years, then is it immoral to not do so? After all, it has the potential to exist.

There is no dividing line between humans and other animals. We shared this Earth with several other similar related hominids until very recently. The de-extinction of neanderthals is all but inevitable at this point. Shall the artificial fertilized egg of a neanderthal be protected with the same zeal that we see here? The only permissible answer is "yes". Those who see humans as fundamental different are the worst kind of xenophobes, and fight against everything we've learned about the universe.

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2013 6:54:43 PM

wat?

7/7/2013 6:58:33 PM

Artificial Intelligence on the same scale of the human brain is only decades, if not a single decade, away. These deserve the same rights as normal humans, no matter what the immoral pro-lifers may say.

De-Extinction is bringing back animals that previously went extinct. It can't happen for dinosaurs, but it will certainly happen for the dodo, Carolina Parakeet, and many others. It will happen for our relatives as well.

7/7/2013 7:01:41 PM

animals are not humans.

robots are not humans.

7/7/2013 7:04:27 PM

humans are not special.

7/7/2013 7:08:49 PM

science, art, philosophy, literature, engineering, etc... the things that come from our large and uniquely developed brains... i would think these things do make us special.

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2013 7:11:30 PM

Unique now is not unique forever. Other hominids had many of those things. Some had larger brains and better focus than we possess. The only reason we have a monopoly on those things is because we out-competed (and inter-bred with) our competitors. In some cases, however, that's probably a nice word for saying we murdered them, along with the rest of the large animals.

7/7/2013 7:19:25 PM

k.

7/7/2013 7:23:42 PM

Quote :

"it has it's own distinct genetic make-up, it's own heartbeat (which can be measured only after a few weeks), it's own tissues, etc"

by Smath's definition, animals have an identity to

(kudos for using identity instead of soul)

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM. Reason : to is too is 2]

7/7/2013 7:58:04 PM

hey i like to take quotes out of context. that quote clearly is talking about humans.

^my objection to abortion free-for-all is not religiously motivated in any way shape or form.


and yes, i realize you people are just trolls.

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2013 8:11:17 PM

How many is a free-for-all? The majority of Americans support "safe, accessible, and rare"

7/7/2013 8:46:43 PM

if i was bill gates rich, i'd open an abortion clinic offering free abortions

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 9:32 PM. Reason : hell, i'd pay folks to get an abortion]

[Edited on July 7, 2013 at 9:32 PM. Reason : cause i'm a philanthropist like that]

7/7/2013 9:31:23 PM

of course you would... you are the same person who was advocating for eugenics.

7/7/2013 9:35:03 PM

all i said is that abortion as a "soft form of eugenics" is not a reason to outlaw abortion

7/7/2013 9:43:07 PM

no, you said:

Quote :

"Why don't we just admit that abortion is a soft form of eugenics?"

Quote :

" is this a bad thing?"

7/7/2013 10:13:39 PM

i still haven't been convinced otherwise

7/7/2013 10:55:42 PM

The subtext of the entire republican platform is eugenics.

7/7/2013 11:04:09 PM

Quote :

"Like being raped?"

Where have I even remotely stated that? If the only way you can defend the common case is to appeal to the unlikely extremes, then you are already losing. The vast and overwhelming majority of abortions are elective, and that fits exactly my statement.

^ Ironic, considering that the major founders of planned parenthood (who are major liberal icons, btw) were eugenics proponents...

7/7/2013 11:10:10 PM

It is ironic.

My how things change.

7/7/2013 11:16:09 PM

I'm not sure I would consider 5-6% an "unlikely extreme".

7/7/2013 11:43:46 PM

5% of abortions are for rape? You might want to check that number, dude. Try 1%. That is, by any definition, an extreme. Hell, even 5% is an extreme.

7/7/2013 11:53:33 PM

5-6% of rapes result in pregnancy, dude.

7/8/2013 12:00:01 AM

But that's clearly not what I was talking about. Nowhere was I saying that pregnancy from rape was rare. I was plainly talking about abortions where rape is involved.

7/8/2013 12:02:43 AM

No, you were talking about being 'inconvenienced by the consequences of her previous decisions and actions'. Bweez pointed out that not all of that inconvenience is the result of the woman's decisions and actions. In the case of rape, 5-6% of women are inconvenienced, to use your intentionally trivializing term.

In other words, Bweez was pointing out that your blanket statement doesn't really cover everything.

7/8/2013 12:10:58 AM

Yes, I referenced a woman being inconvenienced by her previous actions and decisions. To even consider rape in that context is absolutely absurd, unless you are one who assumes the victim is at fault in a rape. I clarified that, for Bweez's benefit. Then I spoke about "defending the common case." What, by the way, is the "common case" referring to? Stop and think about that. If I'm talking about "defending the common case", yet I'm talking about 5% of rapes, then how in the fuck does that make any sense? I then went on to specifically talk about the "extremes" by again referencing abortion, specifically elective ones. You need to work on your reading comprehension if you can't see that.

7/8/2013 12:21:33 AM

I was obviously pointing out that every abortion doesn't stem from a "desire not to be inconvenienced." If you're going to pit the right to exist against a woman's "desire not to be inconvenienced" you should also acknowledge rape abortions, abortions for maternal health reasons, etc. Or do you value an unborn fetus's life more than the life of the mother?

But I guess you were responding to the notion of personal freedoms, in which case yeah, what a woman does with her body is also none of your business.

The "right to existence" is a slippery slope. Does a fertilized egg alone have the right to exist as a human in 9 months?

7/8/2013 1:30:04 AM

is ending an ectopic pregnancy abortion?

7/8/2013 6:08:19 AM

Btw, a rape trial will take longer than 9 months, so unless you want to force women to have their rape babies, the entire court system will need to be reformed first.

Either that, or "I was raped" will be the box everyone checks when coming in for an abortion, making the whole distinction pointless

7/8/2013 7:11:57 AM

Quote :

"is ending an ectopic pregnancy abortion?"

Aborting such a pregnancy is murder. Don't let them change the terms on you.

Any willful destruction of a living fertilized egg or fetus is murder. We're only debating when we should allow other people to murder these things. The situation you refer to is one where the options are:
a) murder a fetus and keep a human alive
b) don't murder a fetus and allow both the fetus and human to die

Based on utilitarian ethics (a) is clearly preferable. But based on those ethics, it's better to fully accept the liberal position on abortion. Every pro-life account ITT staunchly rejects utilitarian ethics, pointing to (b) being the only "responsible" option.

7/8/2013 8:36:36 AM

it's not murder.

Quote :

"Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind"

I'd like to see you proof that all abortions are done with malicious intent. Also. R v W. not illegal

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 9:54 AM. Reason : a]

7/8/2013 9:49:12 AM

no, the pro-life definition of murder is knowingly taking any action that leads to complete cell death of any human or pre-human after the point of conception.

Your definition of murder that involves malice is just plain wrong. Here's another definition

Quote :

"The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

Malice isn't necessary for the definition. You're thinking of something else, like 2nd degree murder.

7/8/2013 10:01:13 AM

it looks like cain's post was driven by a misunderstanding that your post was a description of your personal opinion

(and good news for NeuseRvrRat: eugenics are still happening: http://cironline.org/reports/female-inmates-sterilized-california-prisons-without-approval-4917 )

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

7/8/2013 10:08:53 AM

Quote :

"Every pro-life account ITT staunchly rejects utilitarian ethics, pointing to (b) being the only "responsible" option."

what?

7/8/2013 11:38:20 AM

Utilitarian ethics looks to the outcome of a situation to determine what is morally "good" and "bad". If you can murder 1 innocent person to save 2, then on a utilitarian basis, doing so is good. An alternative is to say that murder is wrong, and the fact that 2 people will die in the case of no action is irrelevant.

Pro-life is about preventing the murder of the unborn. This position has no obligation to the future state of society. It has no obligation to the quality of care those children will receive once born. Nor does it have any obligation to the freedom of the pregnant mother. Appeals to these points have been made over and over again to deaf ears.

I, for one, intend to see the pro-life position for what it is. As an ethical absolutist position, they do not want to allow a person to destroy a human fetus. It's not a complicated position, and it explains beautifully why aaronburro has changed none of his beliefs. It's not that he hates women, it's just that bodily autonomy is irrelevant because it doesn't change the nature of murder.

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

7/8/2013 12:00:59 PM

You keep saying murder.

Looking at the definition you've used:

A) It's not unlawful.

B) A non-sentient mass of cells is not a human. I'll just leave out this point since I guess it's an opinion. The lawfulness is enough to kill the word "murder"

The fact that "the pro-life definition of murder" allows them to use it as a shocking buzzword doesn't make you or them look any less silly.

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 1:46 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2013 1:44:37 PM

Bweez, cain,

He is giving a description of the anti-choice definition. It is murder by that definition. He explained this very well, it was an extremely good explanation.

7/8/2013 1:55:33 PM

Get a room.

He stated "Aborting such a pregnancy is murder" which is patently false.

I really don't care if I was arguing his definition or his description of an 'anti-choice definition'. Firstly, pro-lifers can't re-define words. Secondly, he's throwing the word around in a manner that suggests he approves of its use.

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2013 2:31:09 PM

that statement was based on the absolutist position that he clearly described, it is not his personal claim

7/8/2013 2:43:55 PM

What the fuck are you talking about?

On the last page he stated:

Quote :

"A reasonable requirement, however, is to avoid unnecessary suffering and avoiding an all-out genocide - requirements that we seem to fail to enforce uniformly. I think those same requirements should apply to fetuses, sure. "

Did some sort of faux-intellectual satire go over my head?

On the post in question on this page he clearly said "Aborting such a pregnancy is murder," free from context or clarification that that's somehow not his view. If I missed some point where he switched modes and clarified anything let me know.

7/8/2013 2:55:18 PM

yes

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 3:11 PM. Reason : it went over your head]

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 3:12 PM. Reason : edited for clarification- THIS POST IS NOT SATIRE]

7/8/2013 3:11:05 PM

okay excuse me for taking a context-free, allegedly satirical "I think those same requirements should apply to fetuses, sure" and other plain statements at face value on the internet.

how long have you two been dating?

[Edited on July 8, 2013 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

7/8/2013 4:11:54 PM

Quote :

"On the post in question on this page he clearly said "Aborting such a pregnancy is murder," free from context or clarification that that's somehow not his view. If I missed some point where he switched modes and clarified anything let me know."

Correct, I am pro-murder. It's the same as pro-choice, but avoids the all-too-common retort of "MURDERER!"

7/8/2013 5:24:29 PM

7/10/2013 7:29:09 PM

i find the notion of having an abortion morally reprehensible, and imagining a woman having one literally makes me want to vomit. the tricky part about this issue is that abortions, as an ends, benefit society. ideally, people would grow a fucking brain and use one of the many easy, affordable birth control methods so they could circumvent killing what i do consider a human being in the first place. until then, abortion should definitely be legal. it's a very personal decision, and one the person who makes it has to live with.

i'm more libertarian than anything, but if it were up to me, we would be giving out birth control pills and rubbers for free on every street corner. that is, everything else being the way it is now. so much money could be saved in the long run by having fewer families relying on the government.

7/10/2013 8:30:56 PM

Sometimes I wish I was a woman so I could have an abortion just to piss the religious right off. I'd even polyabort my twins at nine months if I could

7/10/2013 9:20:25 PM

Quote :

"The lawfulness is enough to kill the word "murder""

Not really. We all have a concept of murder that is specifically independent of the definition assigned to it for the purposes of our court system. Absent any governmental structures, there are still actions that people would consider to be "murder". As such, relying on "murder is the unlawful killing of ..." is a bit of a cop out.

Quote :

"I was obviously pointing out that every abortion doesn't stem from a "desire not to be inconvenienced.""

Which is a needless distinction. I'm not saying that every abortion stems from that, either. I acknowledge rape abortions, but I rightly pointed out that they represent a small minority of abortions performed, ~1% to as high as 5%, depending on what sources you use. Maternal health abortions, too, are in the minority. All told, at least ~90% of abortions are purely elective in nature. As far as I'm concerned, that's a high enough number, by far, to be considered the "common case" to which I was previously referring.

My view of the life of the fetus is not as cold as mrfrog would like to paint with regard to the mother's life. He's fairly correct, though, in describing the rest of my views. My views on abortion dictate nothing about my views towards the life after its born. That's not to say such views are "fuck it once it's born."

Quote :

"Aborting such a pregnancy is murder. Don't let them change the terms on you."

I would disagree. Don't put words in my mouth. Ending an ectopic pregnancy is abortion, but it's not murder. We recognize situations outside of the womb where killing is not considered murder, so I don't see why you would think I would be so rigid inside the womb. There are times when killing human life is OK. Convenience of the killer, in all circumstances I can consider, is not one of those times.

7/10/2013 9:29:15 PM

When are the other times its okay? To save the life of the mother? Cases of rape? The fetus has a terminal genetic illness that will cause them to be horribly disfigures and in pain and die shortly after birth? Of you are not an absolutist, where do you draw the line? Why is the line there?

And since its okay if its outside the womb, I assume embryonic research is okay as well as abortifacient drugs that prevent implantation?

[Edited on July 10, 2013 at 10:13 PM. Reason : ectopic pregnancies are not inside the womb FYI]

7/10/2013 10:10:53 PM

When are times that it's OK? Life of the mother, sure. Terminal genetic illnesses, sure. In cases of rape, I hold my nose and say yes, only because forcing the child to term is the equivalent of continuing the rape. Why do I draw the line here? Each one is different, but they all share the common theme that there is more of a reason for abortion than simply "this child inconveniences me". I'm looking at this as a balancing of rights, something we do every day in other arenas. A woman's desire not to be inconvenienced has no weight over the unborn's right to existence, whereas the mother's life bears more weight.

Interestingly enough, the woman's right to dominion over her own body is why I don't have a problem with birth control. When she is taking the pill, she's (presumably) not pregnant, so there is no other life or rights to consider. To be truly thorough, though, you'd have to check every single day if the woman was pregnant before she took the pill if we wanted to go the extreme of being sure, which, needless to say, would be quite invasive to the woman. Also, there's no way to know if any specific fertilized egg will implant, so, even though we know these drugs can and do prevent implantation, we can't say, for sure, if the drug is preventing any specific implantation. As such, we can't say if there are any other rights to consider, so we fall back to respecting the rights that we do know to exist, namely the mother's right to dominion over her own body.

Also, it is a complete misrepresentation to say "it's ok to kill outside of the womb".

7/10/2013 10:54:41 PM