only, not really. It is one of the founding principles of our nation. the law fallacy specifically require legislation.

3/22/2011 3:53:47 PM

Quote :

"again, I'm not the one arguing that we should suck babies out of women's stomachs and suck their brains out with a vacuum cleaner. I'm not the arguing that we devalue human life when it is convenient to do so. you are one evil ass Nazi"

I think most everyone would be ok with banning late stage abortions (unless significant risk to mothers life or extreme extenuating circumstances). However a clump of fucking cells is not a baby and scraping out a clump of cells shouldn't be equated to killing a human. Do you think the morning after pill is just as wrong as waiting till a baby is born and choking it out?

3/22/2011 3:54:57 PM

Quote :

"i see. so when your father is decapitated, you will just walk all over his remains and piss on him and let the dog chew his flesh off, right?"

No, but when they cremate what's left of his body I won't charge them with murder. (which is essentially what you're suggesting when you say that aborting a fetus without functioning neural physiology is murder).

3/22/2011 3:56:09 PM

^^ you are nothing more than a "clump of cells."

Quote :

"No, but when they cremate what's left of his body I won't charge them with murder. (which is essentially what you're suggesting when you say that aborting a fetus without functioning neural physiology is murder)."

let's see... cremating something that has no heart-beat versus sucking the brains out of something that has a heart-beat. hmmm...


are these all just "clumps of cells?"





[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 4:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 4:00:21 PM

Quote :

"only, not really. It is one of the founding principles of our nation. the law fallacy specifically require legislation."

Ok, let's call it "appeal to founding principles" then. It's a fallacy, regardless of whether or not is formally stated in Wikipedia. I'm sure you learned some deductive reasoning in school.

3/22/2011 4:04:40 PM

^^
Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

3/22/2011 4:05:25 PM

hahaha. so, it's a fallacy, because you say it is. got it. haha, "appeal to founding principles." That's a good one, dude. It's perfectly OK for you to say that you don't think human beings have rights that are independent of their government. Say it, and put yourself into the camp that you are truly in. Hitler and Stalin

Quote :

"Appeal to emotion: where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning"

or maybe, I'm showing that something is a little more than just a "clump of cells" by showing that there is a fuck ton of cells there showing serious organization and structure. Something that precludes the use of the word "clump"

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 4:08 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 4:06:28 PM

Quote :

"Do you think the morning after pill is just as wrong as waiting till a baby is born and choking it out?"

answer the question or admit defeat.

Considering that many of those early stage aborted fetuses look similar to the pinkies which I routinely kill and feed to snakes you can consider me unimpressed. I wonder what chimpanzee fetuses at the exact same stage of development would look like? I guess they are human too.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 4:09 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/22/2011 4:08:01 PM

let's see, one is taken when you have a fully breathing being outside of the womb, the other before you even know if such a being exists. yes, there is truly a moral equivalency there. that is truly "defeat"

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 4:09:55 PM

So there is a difference between an extreme early stage abortion (aka morning after pill) and killing a freshly born infant?
You don't see why that makes your entire house of cards come crashing down around you?

3/22/2011 4:12:26 PM

no, because you are making a false dilemma. an all or nothing deal. I've made no such claim. Such a claim would preclude even birth control. I'm making no such claim. nice try at building up a beautiful man of straw, though and then turning it into a false dilemma.

an abortion involves, and get this, KNOWING YOU ARE PREGNANT. see the difference? In one, you are preventing a pregnancy. In the other, you are expressly terminating it. there's kind of a difference

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 4:14:10 PM

Quote :

"hahaha. so, it's a fallacy, because you say it is. got it. haha, "appeal to founding principles." That's a good one, dude. It's perfectly OK for you to say that you don't think human beings have rights that are independent of their government. Say it, and put yourself into the camp that you are truly in. Hitler and Stalin"

Does this one work for you?

Quote :

"This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, the spreading of various religious beliefs, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger"."

haha i can't believe i have to explain to you why your argument is fallacious. it's like if someone gave you an orange and a sharp rock and told you to peel it, but you couldn't figure it out because you don't have a knife. hahahaha

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2011 4:15:29 PM

Answer this question. Is removing a fertalized egg from a womans womb immediately after conception the same thing as killing a freshly born infant. I am truly trying to understand how your logic works.

3/22/2011 4:17:33 PM

Quote :

"let's see... cremating something that has no heart-beat versus sucking the brains out of something that has a heart-beat. hmmm..."

You're a moron and you're conflating terms. Is it a heart-beat or brains that are important to personhood?

I contend that it is the functioning brains. We can make muscle tissue flex with electrical impulses. We can manually make a heart-beat. If we take a cadaver and make its heart beat are we making it a person?

Quote :

"the other before you even know if such a being exists."

Why exactly is the knowledge of the mother relevant?

3/22/2011 4:20:12 PM

Quote :

"Does this one work for you?"

Quote :

"It's perfectly OK for you to say that you don't think human beings have rights that are independent of their government. Say it, and put yourself into the camp that you are truly in. Hitler and Stalin"

Do you believe people have rights or not?

Quote :

"Answer this question. Is removing a fertalized egg from a womans womb immediately after conception the same thing as killing a freshly born infant. I am truly trying to understand how your logic works."

What part of "one you know you are pregnant, the other you don't" doesn't make sense to you?

Quote :

"You're a moron and you're conflating terms. Is it a heart-beat or brains that are important to personhood? "

i am doing no such thing. nor am I saying that either of those are necessary or sufficient for personhood (as certainly a dog has a brain and a heart-beat).

Quote :

"Why exactly is the knowledge of the mother relevant?"

That's actually a good question. I am opposed to abortion as birth control, from a personal responsibility stand-point, but also the standpoint of life. If a woman doesn't know she is pregnant and she goes out and plays softball and gets hit in the stomach by the ball and it terminates the pregnancy, do I call her or the person who threw/hit the ball a murderer? Of course not. Do I call the woman who takes birth control a murderer? Of course not. I firmly believe that when you have sex, you say "I accept the responsibility that having sex brings, namely the possibility of getting pregnant." I see a massive difference between trying to minimize that possibility via birth control and contraceptives and ducking the consequences for losing the gamble. And, I'll happily note that the consequences for losing the gamble fall on both the woman AND the man.
However, I also acknowledge that a fetus, at a bare minimum, is a life. Period. And a it is a fetus at approximately 9 weeks. 1-2 weeks, i dunno how I feel. 3 weeks and on it's a little grey. 9 weeks, it's a person. But, I think at the point you know you are pregnant, no matter when, you then are responsible for the choice you make with regards to a human life, as it is no longer a question of "if." It's no longer a question of prevention. It's now a matter of life.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 4:30:58 PM

A fetus only has rights when the mother knows it is there? Is this seriously what you are trying to contend? What about situations where a mother doesn't realize she is pregnant (women have given birth without actually realizing they were preggers there are some stupid people out there) and she does something to harm or kill the fetus?

3/22/2011 4:35:32 PM

Quote :

"Do you believe people have rights or not"

Yes, but they aren't intrinsic as you seem to think. Rights are collectively decided upon by groups of people. Different groups of people have different standards of human rights. It is not wrong or impossible to question their existence or relevance.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 4:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2011 4:35:44 PM

Quote :

"i am doing no such thing. nor am I saying that either of those are necessary or sufficient for personhood (as certainly a dog has a brain and a heart-beat)."

It is implied that I'm referring to human gestation here. C'mon man.

Quote :

"That's actually a good question. I am opposed to abortion as birth control, from a personal responsibility stand-point, but also the standpoint of life. If a woman doesn't know she is pregnant and she goes out and plays softball and gets hit in the stomach by the ball and it terminates the pregnancy, do I call her or the person who threw/hit the ball a murderer? Of course not. Do I call the woman who takes birth control a murderer? Of course not. I firmly believe that when you have sex, you say "I accept the responsibility that having sex brings, namely the possibility of getting pregnant." I see a massive difference between trying to minimize that possibility via birth control and contraceptives and ducking the consequences for losing the gamble. And, I'll happily note that the consequences for losing the gamble fall on both the woman AND the man."

This is an untenable philosophy. If a gestating fetus at any stage is truly as valuable as an infant then unintentional termination is unconscionable. You may not charge the mother with murder, but what would you charge a person that accidentally hit a newborn in the head with a softball and killed it? If this is different than your example of an incidental termination, then please explain why.

3/22/2011 4:37:48 PM

Quote :

"A fetus only has rights when the mother knows it is there? Is this seriously what you are trying to contend?"

Really? The discussion of rights is entirely separated from the issue of whether the pregnancy is known. Only a troll would try to connect the two, as I made no attempt to do so.

Quote :

"What about situations where a mother doesn't realize she is pregnant (women have given birth without actually realizing they were preggers there are some stupid people out there) and she does something to harm or kill the fetus?"

What part of this did you not understand?

Quote :

"If a woman doesn't know she is pregnant and she goes out and plays softball and gets hit in the stomach by the ball and it terminates the pregnancy, do I call her or the person who threw/hit the ball a murderer?"

Quote :

"Yes, but they aren't intrinsic as you seem to think. Rights are collectively decided upon by groups of people."

No, they really are not, and that is why you don't comprehend the difference. Rights are not established by a government. Privileges are. Rights are entirely separate and distinct from government, and they exist even when government or anything like it does not. Thus the notion that mankind is, pardon the religious reference, "endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights." At no point does that phrase say "given by governments." This notion is fundamental to the notion of a "right." Our Constitution does not give us rights. It protects them. And you MUST understand that to understand why the Constitution is important and what it does.

Quote :

"This is an untenable philosophy. If a gestating fetus at any stage is truly as valuable as an infant then unintentional termination is unconscionable."

Should we then put you in prison when you are driving down the road and a bug flies into your windshield? What about a bird? What if you hit a rabbit. A dog? A deer?

Quote :

"You may not charge the mother with murder, but what would you charge a person that accidentally hit a newborn in the head with a softball and killed it?"

It would depend. Did he put the newborn on home plate and then toss the ball to a batter? Was the newborn in the stands? Was the softball field right beside a maternity ward? Certainly an accident is different from an intentional act, no? Moreover, in all of these instances, we know that there is a life involved (if we accept, for the sake of argument, that an unborn baby is life, only for the purpose of this sentence). I posit that the knowledge that you are terminating a life makes it uniquely different from the effort to prevent the occurrence of a life through responsible means such as contraceptives and birth control. Maybe it's the naivety of "out of sight, out of mind," but I really don't cry when I walk across the lawn and squash a bug that I didn't even know was there.

3/22/2011 5:09:20 PM

Quote :

"Should we then put you in prison when you are driving down the road and a bug flies into your windshield? What about a bird? What if you hit a rabbit. A dog? A deer?"

Wat? We're talking about human gestation here. Again. You're the one using terms like "murder".

Quote :

"It would depend. Did he put the newborn on home plate and then toss the ball to a batter? Was the newborn in the stands? Was the softball field right beside a maternity ward? Certainly an accident is different from an intentional act, no? Moreover, in all of these instances, we know that there is a life involved (if we accept, for the sake of argument, that an unborn baby is life, only for the purpose of this sentence). I posit that the knowledge that you are terminating a life makes it uniquely different from the effort to prevent the occurrence of a life through responsible means such as contraceptives and birth control. Maybe it's the naivety of "out of sight, out of mind," but I really don't cry when I walk across the lawn and squash a bug that I didn't even know was there."

All I'm asking is replace the pregnant woman socked in the belly with the softball with an infant. Both accidental. Don't change any other parameters. Would you punish the person who threw the ball differently and why?

You don't cry when you walk across the lawn and squash a bug because you're not murdering a human being when you do that. Just like early term abortions. An embryo and early stage fetus is no more a person than a bug.

3/22/2011 5:20:24 PM

Quote :

"Wat? We're talking about human gestation here. Again. You're the one using terms like "murder"."

and I posit that an unborn child is alive. Thus, to terminate it, knowingly, and without due process or its consent, is murder. You limited it to human gestation, but I broadened it to unintentional killing of other things, for background.

Quote :

"All I'm asking is replace the pregnant woman socked in the belly with the softball with an infant."

And that is vast oversimplification. Thus why I asked the details.

Quote :

"You don't cry when you walk across the lawn and squash a bug because you're not murdering a human being when you do that."

No, I don't cry because I didn't know that I did it. If I see the bug, I'll try to avoid squashing it, because bugs are generally beneficial. Thus the reason I try to catch bugs that I find in my house and put them outside.


by the way, this:

is vastly different from and far more of a person than this:


it's pretty inhuman to suggest otherwise

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 5:31 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 5:27:54 PM

The same people that want the other people (ie the government) to get the fuck out of their lives are dead set hell bent on being in everyone elses on this issue.

This is before even considering the fact that poor people pump out more poor people which Republicans will eventually whine about having to support.

The ideological inconsistencies on this topic blow my mind.

3/22/2011 6:00:36 PM

let's see... preventing murder means "getting in everyone else's business." got it.

3/22/2011 6:02:08 PM

Do humans have the right to have another human support them? Like, is that an inalienable right?

3/22/2011 6:11:03 PM

It's not clear from that photograph whether the fetus (or embryo, scale is unknown) had working neural physiology. Before neural formation, it's not a human being. Your argument boils down to "it looks like an itty bitty human, therefore it's murder."

A cadaver looks a lot more like a human than those aborted embryos/fetuses. Until the fetus has a functioning nervous system, it is just a mass of human tissue. It's no more a human being than my finger.

And you're being purposefully obtuse regarding the softball hypothetical (which you conjured by the way).

Let's say a woman is sitting in the stands and an errant pass flies past the first baseman and strikes her in the stomach. In scenario A, she's pregnant 10 weeks and miscarries as a direct result of the accident. In scenario B, she's holding an infant on her lap which is struck by the ball and dies as a direct result of the accident.

Are these incidents identical in moral and/or optimum legal terms? If so, why?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, this conversation is really to emphasize that early term embryos/fetuses are not human beings by a reasonable definition of human being and abortion at this stage is not murder even by the most rigorous definition of murder. That being said, I don't support the idea that abortion is murder even after this stage all the way up to birth. There's no way to implement that without impinging the rights of the mother who is clearly a person and deserves rights.

Post-script, I'm not against crimes against pregnant women being punished more harshly simply because the victim was pregnant. In this legal sense the woman's rights are not at issue.

3/22/2011 6:12:01 PM

Quote :

"No, they really are not, and that is why you don't comprehend the difference. Rights are not established by a government. Privileges are. Rights are entirely separate and distinct from government, and they exist even when government or anything like it does not. Thus the notion that mankind is, pardon the religious reference, "endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights." At no point does that phrase say "given by governments." This notion is fundamental to the notion of a "right." Our Constitution does not give us rights. It protects them. And you MUST understand that to understand why the Constitution is important and what it does."

Nowhere did I mention government. I mean collectively decided as in we generally believe that murder is wrong. Maybe I should have said "collectively accepted". Is this what you are trying to say? If not, where do "rights" come from? You can't say they are just "there". Explain.

Seriously can someone else confirm that this is fucking crazy talk?

3/22/2011 6:19:39 PM

Quote :

"It's not clear from that photograph whether the fetus (or embryo, scale is unknown) had working neural physiology. Before neural formation, it's not a human being."

and your basis for this is... riiiight...

Quote :

"Your argument boils down to "it looks like an itty bitty human, therefore it's murder.""

no, not really. My argument is "it's a fucking human. get the fuck over it." which is basically the same as your argument. neural physiology is just a nice way to relieve you of any potential guilt over murdering a human being. The difference is that mine treats an actual life with some respect, whereas yours just devalues it, again, putting you on the same level as Hitler and Stalin

Quote :

"And you're being purposefully obtuse regarding the softball hypothetical"

Not at all. the point was to show intent versus accident. Abortion is intentional. Hitting a woman in the stomach with a softball who doesn't know she's pregnant is accidental. It's not a huge stretch of logic to figure that out.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 6:22 PM. Reason : -->

3/22/2011 6:19:41 PM

Quote :

"neural physiology is just a nice way to relieve you of any potential guilt over murdering a human being."

No, it's an attempt to include science in the discussion, vs. relying on emotional manipulation and/or religious dogma.

3/22/2011 6:24:47 PM

science is little more than more reasoned religion. The notion of a "human being" cannot be scientifically defined. Thus the reason that the two explanations are identical in nature. Again, my definitions values life, yours destroys it. But please, point to anywhere where I have invoked religious dogma.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 6:26 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 6:25:58 PM

Quote :

"science is little more than more reasoned religion."

you're an idiot

3/22/2011 6:27:37 PM

I'm sorry that you can't see the fundamental assumption that makes up science... all religions are based on some kind of assumption and belief. as is science. and, AGAIN, I'm not the one arguing that we devalue some forms of human life for convenience sake.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 6:38 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 6:38:05 PM

Your definition devalues the life of the load I shot in my gym sock this morning.

3/22/2011 6:41:47 PM

you assume your DNA has any value to begin with

3/22/2011 6:43:03 PM

Obviously that puts you on the same level as Adolf Hitler.

3/22/2011 6:46:02 PM

Quote :

"science is little more than more reasoned religion."

you should sign every post with this, so everyone immediately knows to not take you seriously

3/22/2011 6:46:25 PM

yep, because stating something that people don't understand is truly absurd, right? Especially when people need to understand it. It's not to devalue science. But rather, to show people its limitation, so that it can be properly used

but, that's another thread.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ]

3/22/2011 6:51:37 PM

Quote :

"and your basis for this is... riiiight..."

My basis for this I have presented several times in the thread. Human being is a psychological state and necessarily requires a working brain. Human parts - brain != human being. Same reason a cadaver is not a person.

Quote :

"The notion of a "human being" cannot be scientifically defined."

I disagree. Neurology and medicine has given us a clear understanding of how our existence is tied inexorably to our brains.

Quote :

"science is little more than more reasoned religion."

I have to agree with adultswim on this one. I feel like I'm being trolled.

3/22/2011 6:52:19 PM

Quote :

"Human parts - brain != human being."

too bad a fetus has a brain...

Quote :

"Same reason a cadaver is not a person."

yet, a cadaver, by definition, is also not alive. apples and oranges here.

Quote :

"I disagree. Neurology and medicine has given us a clear understanding of how our existence is tied inexorably to our brains."

And priests of a previous era would say that our understanding of God has given us a clear understanding of all that is around us. Moreover, this has very little to do with what is actually a "human being."

3/22/2011 6:56:13 PM

Do anti-abortion people also oppose the dolphin slaughters in Japan?

3/22/2011 7:05:43 PM

i dunno... not a fan of them, lol

3/22/2011 7:06:35 PM

Quote :

"Seriously can someone else confirm that this is fucking crazy talk?"

Yes we can all confirm that this is crazy religious ranting.

You seem to be dodging this question burro. Do you think that a human fertilized egg should be afforded the same protection as a child. According to you both are humans so it is equally bad for a woman to take a morning after pill (if it terminates a fertilized egg) as it would be for me to go kill a child? Does this really seem right to you?

3/22/2011 7:13:10 PM

already been over that, dude. try to keep up

3/22/2011 7:17:47 PM

No you haven't nice try at avoiding it though.

3/22/2011 7:18:37 PM

actually, yeah, I have. here's a hint: 4:30pm

3/22/2011 7:19:51 PM

Quote :

"too bad a fetus has a brain..."

A functioning neurological system capable of (PAY FUCKING ATTENTION HERE PLEASE) human consciousness. Cadavers also have brains.

Quote :

"yet, a cadaver, by definition, is also not alive. apples and oranges here."

My finger is alive and yet is not a human being. Why? It doesn't have brain capable of independent thought.

Quote :

"And priests of a previous era would say that our understanding of God has given us a clear understanding of all that is around us."

Ok, I'll go with scientific study and you go with priests of a previous era.

Quote :

" Moreover, this has very little to do with what is actually a "human being.""

Since I'm the only one in this thread that even bothered to define it, I'll go ahead and say no until you provide a definition that isn't "magical fairy aura".

Quote :

"actually, yeah, I have. here's a hint: 4:30pm"

The answer is yes, aaronburro thinks the morning after pill is murder.

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 7:21 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2011 7:20:54 PM

Quote :

"What part of "one you know you are pregnant, the other you don't" doesn't make sense to you?"

This does not address the question asked. Is a fertilized human egg a human life burro?

3/22/2011 7:23:37 PM

my thoughts (I know you wanted them):

Hey, killing people is sometimes right. On top of that, sometimes our morals change over time depending on our circumstances, they are constantly changing. I think that an ultimate logical conclusion is Janism hard-core "don't ever kill anything" type of attitude. Either way, there is an entire host of moral imperatives that will be important to us at some point in the future but are not now.

The anti-abortion campaigners, due to what I find to be a cultural excess, have found great importance in a moral imperative that is completely and undeniably maladjusted to the circumstances that the Earth presently find itself in. Yes, I got it, it is morally preferable to not kill babies.

But the entire debate is argued with that single moral black-and-white. On any reasonable ethical grounds, the fetus development process only possesses an ethical life-value equal to another organism with the same cognitive capability. I don't think it's right to kill a 2 year-old, but it's not fregin right to kill an intelligent monkey that is as cognizant as a 2 year-old either!

When should we no longer kill fetuses? The cyborg age. By the time that women don't have to spend $$ and alter their body chemistry, use condoms, and all that jazz - but can just directly tell its body to not make a baby in the first place, THEN we should work on getting rid of abortions. At the same time that we gain the ability to totally prevent miscarriages, then it makes sense to look more closely at the moral wrong of aborting.

Until then, global warming is way way more morally important than babies.

3/22/2011 7:36:24 PM

Quote :

"A functioning neurological system capable of (PAY FUCKING ATTENTION HERE PLEASE) human consciousness"

well, now we've got a circular argument A human is capable of human consciousness.

Quote :

"My finger is alive and yet is not a human being."

Actually, no. Your finger is not alive. it is a part of you, which is alive.

Quote :

"Since I'm the only one in this thread that even bothered to define it, I'll go ahead and say no until you provide a definition that isn't "magical fairy aura"."

The question of "what makes a human a human" has been asked for thousands of years. I seriously doubt we will arrive at the answer in this thread...

Quote :

"The answer is yes, aaronburro thinks the morning after pill is murder."

If that's what you took from it, then you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

Quote :

"This does not address the question asked. Is a fertilized human egg a human life burro?"

That was not the question asked to the quote to which you responded. If you keep changing the question, then of course it will never be answered.

3/22/2011 8:29:59 PM

Quote :

"That was not the question asked to the quote to which you responded. If you keep changing the question, then of course it will never be answered. "

Answer both questions, then.

3/22/2011 8:32:27 PM

why? Then you'll have two questions to change. Not to mention the fact that I already answered the first question.

3/22/2011 8:38:08 PM