Quote :

"the child is no longer physically apart of the mother."

Well the child isn't connected by too terribly much to the mother before it's born, either. It's attached in a way that is more or less analagous to all manner of parasites. Do parasites become one with their hosts?

What about conjoined twins? One is physically a part of the other, even if both are alive. So can one chose to axe the other?

8/22/2005 8:19:55 PM

Quote :

"Well the child isn't connected by too terribly much to the mother before it's born, either. It's attached in a way that is more or less analagous to all manner of parasites. Do parasites become one with their hosts?"

but you admit that it is connected nonetheless.

Parasites are never created BY the hosts. They are transfered to the hosts. The creation is the responsiblity of the mother because the mother chose to create it. It was the mother's choice then and still is until it becomes a separate being.

Quote :

"What about conjoined twins? One is physically a part of the other, even if both are alive. So can one chose to axe the other?"

I didn't realize that one of the twins birthed the other inside its womb. one of the twins did not create, therefor is not inherently responsible for, the other twin.

Quote :

"Again, you're not addressing the issue. You are talking about things that he has, I am talking about what he is."

having Sentience is being sentient. Being, Be, and Is are all from the same infinitive verb "to be". I have red hair, therefore I am redheaded.

[Edited on August 23, 2005 at 1:15 AM. Reason : no space]

8/23/2005 1:14:27 AM

WolfPack2k:

Quote :

" And the things that you are capable of do not make you a human being or not either. "

Ummm... the things we can do is exactly how we define ourselves as humans. If I were to take your brain out of your head, and put it in a robot, would the shell of your body be you, or would the robot with your brain be you? Most people would conventionally define themselves as their personality and thoughts, not their physical construction. A fetus, up to a point, has no self, as conventionally defined, it's nothing more than a clump of cells, like a tumor. Pragmatically, this is not murder. However, it IS a human in an early stage of development (as GrumpyGOP put it), and assuming all is well, it will EVENTUALLY be what we call a human (having it's own thoughts and personality, etc.). The reason abortion is so controversial though, is because different people define different points at which it is okay to commit murder or killing. It sounds morbid, but society condones killing in various situations, and some people see abortion as one of those situations, and others do not.

GrumpyGOP draws the line of killing at abortion, because he doesn't feel that anyone explicitly can benefit from the killing of an innocent, like you can with a war (which if flawed because you can't always determine who would have died had a war not been started, particularly with the current war in Iraq). If you assume war in this modern world is made for noble means, then this is a reasonable belief.

I think that killing a fetus (up to a point) is okay, because even though it will physically be a human one day, it does not actually have the consciousness of a human until it develops to a certain point. Just as the body might naturally abort a fetus if it detects a defect, a woman can choose to unnaturally abort a fetus if she wants to. On top of all that, it seems fascist to enact a law that makes something illegal that has absolutely no negative effect on society in any way.

8/23/2005 1:40:51 AM

Quote :

"I didn't realize that one of the twins birthed the other inside its womb. one of the twins did not create, therefor is not inherently responsible for, the other twin. "

All you said was that the connection matters. If the connection matters, then one twin could kill the other. If the connection does not matter, then he could not. You are now trying to bring in a lot of extraneous arguments that you did not raise in the first place, to try to cover up the weak point in your argument.

Quote :

"having Sentience is being sentient. Being, Be, and Is are all from the same infinitive verb "to be". I have red hair, therefore I am redheaded. "

Missed the point again. The fallacy you have fallen into here is the fallacy of blinders - you are focused into particular words and failing to see the attack on your argument coming from the corner.

You have red hair, you are redheaded. So what? If you didn't, you would still be you, you would just be you with a different shade of hair. What is essentially you would not change - and that is what I am getting at. What difference do any of these extraneous things you raise have to do with who the baby essentially is? Let me ask it another way - from a strictly scientific perspective, what is it that causes you to be you and causes me to be me? (Note, all I want is the science here. We will adjoin moral philosophy later in the discussion, but for now I want to know what scientifically causes you to be you and me to be me)

Quote :

"it's nothing more than a clump of cells"

Scientifically speaking, so are you. You are just a larger clump of cells. But you are still you. What is it, scientifically speaking, that causes you to be you?

Quote :

"Ummm... the things we can do is exactly how we define ourselves as humans"

I don't think this is supported by philosophy. I can do a lot of things that you cannot do - and I assume that you can do a lot of things that I cannot do. But that does not mean that one is more or less human than the other. What about someone who cannot see? Someone who cannot hear, someone who cannot walk, et cetera? If you define being human strictly in terms of the things you can do, then you have no option but to conclude that such people are only partially human. But I don't think such a position is supported by philosophy or, for that matter, science. Consider this example. I can see. Now what if tomorrow morning I woke up and I could not see, I had become blind overnight. I would still be me, nothing inherent about who I am would have changed. Whatever it is that causes me to be me does not change depending upon the things that I can do.

Quote :

"even though it will physically be a human one day,"

You're assuming the rest of your argument. We have not finished inquiring into whether the baby is a life or not. If he is, then he is a human at conception, albeit a small human. Pro-abortion people always want to either avoid this question entirely or address it very quickly and then move on to the rest of their non-arguments. But this is the only question that needs consideration - and it needs a great deal of consideration because it is the one question upon which the entire discussion turns.

8/23/2005 2:09:16 AM

Quote :

"All you said was that the connection matters. If the connection matters, then one twin could kill the other. If the connection does not matter, then he could not. You are now trying to bring in a lot of extraneous arguments that you did not raise in the first place, to try to cover up the weak point in your argument. "

YES, connection to it's MOTHER. the reason it is there. the one that made the choice to create it

there's a difference. but im sure you didnt want to critically read that much.

The fact that I have red hair is a factor in who i am. The fact that I am sentient and sapient defines that I am a homo sapiens.

Point: A fetus does not have sentience nor sapience which then goes that it cannot yet be a homo sapien.

Quote :

"Someone who cannot hear, someone who cannot walk, et cetera? If you define being human strictly in terms of the things you can do, then you have no option but to conclude that such people are only partially human."

Humans are sentient and sapient. That is the definition of a normal human being. the fact that some people cannot see has no bearing on their humanity. the consciousness and self-awareness makes them humans.

Quote :

"You're assuming the rest of your argument. We have not finished inquiring into whether the baby is a life or not. "

trees are living. no one is arguing if these cells are functioning.

Quote :

"So what? If you didn't, you would still be you, you would just be you with a different shade of hair."

I am the sum of my parts. Who i am today is directly related to what color hair i have, what size shoes i wear, everything about me. I am defined as me and you as you by all these "extraneous" things.

[Edited on August 23, 2005 at 10:16 AM. Reason : d]

8/23/2005 10:14:44 AM

didn't the father also choose to create the baby? cause i'm pretty fucking sure that the mother herself didn't create it by herself...

8/23/2005 10:41:03 AM

well the man's work ended at ejaculation

that is also where his right to choose ends

8/23/2005 10:45:37 AM

Quote :

"Humans are sentient and sapient. That is the definition of a normal human being. the fact that some people cannot see has no bearing on their humanity. the consciousness and self-awareness makes them humans. "

It is the definition of a human being according to who? Certainly not according to science - for there is only one scientific thing that causes you to be you and me to be me and a dog to be a dog. I'm going to keep asking until you say it, though I know how much you do not want to say it. What is that thing?

I'm not asking about your arbitrary definitions or sentience or sapience or any of that other nonsense that you try to bring in - those things are arbitrary and non-scientific. What I want to know is the strictly scientific viewpoint. Your arbitrary things have more to do with philosophy, which I will get to soon, but not until we have established the science of the matter.

I'm going on vacation, will be back Saturday evening probably.

8/23/2005 12:00:46 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Ummm... the things we can do is exactly how we define ourselves as humans" I don't think this is supported by philosophy. I can do a lot of things that you cannot do - and I assume that you can do a lot of things that I cannot do. But that does not mean that one is more or less human than the other. What about someone who cannot see? Someone who cannot hear, someone who cannot walk, et cetera? If you define being human strictly in terms of the things you can do, then you have no option but to conclude that such people are only partially human. But I don't think such a position is supported by philosophy or, for that matter, science. Consider this example. I can see. Now what if tomorrow morning I woke up and I could not see, I had become blind overnight. I would still be me, nothing inherent about who I am would have changed. Whatever it is that causes me to be me does not change depending upon the things that I can do. "

I can't tell if you're intentionally being obtuse, or if you really don't understand, so I will assume that you just don't understand. Our unique individual abilities all fall under the same umbrella of our personality. They are all an extension of the different ways our brains work and think, it's a function of thinking. If someone is blind, deaf, and dumb, they're brain is still working. Someone like Terri Sciavo, while biologically alive, has no essence of humanity, her brain was gone. Without our brain and thoughts, you wouldn't have your talents that make you unique. I don't see at all how you can construe that I would think if you lost your sight, you wouldn't be you. That is a position YOU would take, because you seem to believe that your physical body is what defines you. It's not, it's your personality. Think back to the thing if I took your brain and put it in a robot. People would think of the robot as you, not your body without your brain.

Quote :

" Quote : "even though it will physically be a human one day," You're assuming the rest of your argument. We have not finished inquiring into whether the baby is a life or not. If he is, then he is a human at conception, albeit a small human. Pro-abortion people always want to either avoid this question entirely or address it very quickly and then move on to the rest of their non-arguments. But this is the only question that needs consideration - and it needs a great deal of consideration because it is the one question upon which the entire discussion turns."

Perhaps you didn't read my post, but I specifically said it was a human in early development (which implies it was life, and I used the term kill/murder WRT abortion, which also implies it is life). The main point of my post is that different people draw the line at different places in different situations where killing is okay. GrumpyGOP drew the line that killing a baby wasn't okay, because you are not directly saving anyone else's life. I drew the line that killing a fetus is okay (up to a point), when it doesn't have the things people define as what makes us human.

The baby (by baby, I assume you mean fetus) IS life, just like skin cells are life. But, up to a point, it's not the same quality of human life that people generally think of when they think of a human. It's a clump of cells with no identity. It has no defining personality (because it has no brain, it can't perceive the world, or hold an opinion). It is not until the end of the first trimester that the fetus' brain begins to develop, where it may be able to take purposeful influence on its intellectual development.

I have yet to hear any non-arbitrary reason to consider this brand of killing wrong, considering the other brands of killing people support. If you choose to feel that the human in early development has the same rights as other humans, that's understandable, but you have to understand that it's not an objectively definable position, if you don't feel all human killing is wrong.

8/23/2005 4:22:56 PM

Quote :

"I can't tell if you're intentionally being obtuse, or if you really don't understand..."

The answer to your question is: he's intentionally obtuse. I think Cookiepuss hit the nail on the head earlier:

Quote :

"all you're doing is egging people on NOT so you can have a discussion, but rather SO you can go on and on and on about what you think is right and wrong."

All this choad does is put up prolix posts that say nothing and do little but try to point out 'fallacies' in others' posts. Check out his picture gallery--it's very telling.

8/23/2005 5:15:12 PM

You tell em Noen. . .

I always find it interesting how inconsistent "pro-lifers" are. Many (not all but many) anti-abortionist are pro-life and pro-death penalty. Isn't that a contradiction?

8/23/2005 5:33:12 PM

not really. i'm not pro-life or pro-death penalty. but they are not mutually exclusive. they feel that fetuses are human lives and that they have no say in whether they live or die. they feel also that there are people out there who do not deserve to be a part of society and who need to die for it based on crimes they've committed.

8/23/2005 5:40:24 PM

^ Maybe so. . . but if you are an "advocate for innocence" how many innocent people are on death row or have already been executed??? And theirs a debate about what actually constitues life. Some people think if you masturbate and "waste your seed" you are killing a potential fetus.

8/23/2005 5:48:30 PM

i don't support either stance. i'm just saying that it's not irrational to support both.

8/23/2005 5:49:54 PM

I wouldn't have sex with a girl unless I had already agreed with her what we'd do about contraception or planned pregnancy.

8/23/2005 6:02:15 PM

Quote :

"well the man's work ended at ejaculation that is also where his right to choose ends"

if thats the case then the woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs.

8/23/2005 6:34:55 PM

8/23/2005 6:37:08 PM

Quote :

"Parasites are never created BY the hosts. They are transfered to the hosts. The creation is the responsiblity of the mother because the mother chose to create it."

Positively ludicrous. The man has as much decision in the initial creation process, but then his responsibility ends? Uhn-uhn. Not to mention that the two halves of your argument are not connected in any discernible way -- you created it, so you can destroy it? Oh no but only if you are connected to it.

8/23/2005 8:28:25 PM

Sonia posted:

Quote :

"I wouldn't have sex with a girl unless I had already agreed with her what we'd do about contraception or planned pregnancy."

hahaha...

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 10:54 AM. Reason : s]

8/24/2005 10:54:02 AM

Quote :

"well the man's work ended at ejaculation that is also where his right to choose ends"

if thats the case then the woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs.

8/24/2005 10:57:34 AM

Quote :

"It is the definition of a human being according to who? Certainly not according to science - for there is only one scientific thing that causes you to be you and me to be me and a dog to be a dog. I'm going to keep asking until you say it, though I know how much you do not want to say it. What is that thing?"

haha, are you trying to get me to admit that there is a soul in humans? how laughable that you're going to use "science" and souls at the same time.

Quote :

"I'm not asking about your arbitrary definitions or sentience or sapience or any of that other nonsense that you try to bring in - those things are arbitrary and non-scientific. What I want to know is the strictly scientific viewpoint. Your arbitrary things have more to do with philosophy, which I will get to soon, but not until we have established the science of the matter. "

Great, sapience is arbitrary. you sound like a moron. Sapience is what defines homo sapiens, humans, and considering the scientific classification is Homo Sapiens, i would say the scientific community agrees with me.

Quote :

"didn't the father also choose to create the baby? cause i'm pretty fucking sure that the mother herself didn't create it by herself..."

i'm pretty fucking sure that im not arguing against a father's right to choose. it just happens that my general pro-choice statements are in this topic. so stop trolling, bitch.

Quote :

"Positively ludicrous. The man has as much decision in the initial creation process, but then his responsibility ends? Uhn-uhn. Not to mention that the two halves of your argument are not connected in any discernible way -- you created it, so you can destroy it? Oh no but only if you are connected to it."

i'm still not arguing against paternal choice. I really enjoy how you take other people's words and put them into a giant strawman. that's critical to your perceived success.

Now solely for the mother's right to choose.

Quote :

"if thats the case then the woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs."

you're right because after she opens her legs she just pops out a fertilized egg and buries it in the ground. she carries the goddamn fetus , this is crucial now, IN HER BODY, until it is birthed. do you see that she has the responsibility over the fetus and its choices.

8/24/2005 11:58:31 AM

Quote :

"she carries the goddamn fetus , this is crucial now, IN HER BODY, "

SO WHAT? Fuck her body. (Incidentally, if she had said "no" when someone wanted to do that, it would not be an issue.) I am interested in the unborn child's body.

9/8/2005 8:09:44 PM

Quote :

"Great, sapience is arbitrary. you sound like a moron. Sapience is what defines homo sapiens, humans, and considering the scientific classification is Homo Sapiens, i would say the scientific community agrees with me."

Fuck "sapience", whatever the hell that means. You are not answering the question about what causes you to be you and me to be me.

9/8/2005 8:10:46 PM

Quote :

"whatever the hell that means"

9/8/2005 8:13:11 PM

GoldenViper's tool of choice for performing abortions:





[Edited on September 8, 2005 at 8:20 PM. Reason : cowbabies]

9/8/2005 8:20:36 PM

holy shit

00b3r pwnt

ouch

[Edited on September 8, 2005 at 8:24 PM. Reason : i only perform abortions in self-defense]

9/8/2005 8:22:22 PM

9/8/2005 8:43:03 PM

yeah, why can't a guy have an option as far was what to pay?
that has nothing to do with a woman's body.
he gets the choices
1. pay child support with an option to be in child's life
2. pay $200 or whatever his part of the abortion and get the fuck out of dodge before that "thing" becomes a person.

9/8/2005 8:59:01 PM

are you seriously ignorant of sapience?

surely you are ignorant of an encyclopaedia, LAWYER

9/8/2005 9:20:20 PM

I jsut don't give a damn about it. I want to know what makes you a human being. And until you can give me that, let's not pretend like you're this great scientific expert either. This is a VERY elementary scientific question, I bet I could take a seventh grade Life Sciences student and get the right answer - what exactly is holding you up?

9/8/2005 10:56:46 PM

based on its latin definition, i think sapience has something to do with it.

9/8/2005 11:01:56 PM

I'm pro-choice

AND THIS THREAD IS FUCKING STUPID

9/9/2005 10:30:17 AM

^^ "What makes you a homo sapien?"
"Ummm, being sapient, duh!"

Quote :

"i'm still not arguing against paternal choice. I really enjoy how you take other people's words and put them into a giant strawman. that's critical to your perceived success."

Actually, no. You are ignoring a HUGE part of your argument here. You argue that the mother has the right to make the choice because she helped create it. However, you ignore that the father also helped create it. By this consequence of your argument, the decision of whether or not to abort CANNOT be left up to either person alone, as that leaves the other person out of the choice. Unfortunately, even then that's not totally true, as neither the mother or the father is the true "creator." The mother and the father together are the true "creator" of the child (leaving religion out of the mix, mind you). The entity is the creator, not an individual person. Thus, by your initial logic, you simply can't argue that the mother has the right to choose without also including the father in this choice and expect the argument to be coherent.

The actual crux of your argument is not "the mother created it," then, because you choose to ignore the father. The true crux is "ITS HER BODY!" This statement disregards the father, and even more so is ignorant of and in conflict with the logical conclusion of your point about the "creator" having the right to choose. Being that the creator is an abstract entity rather than a physical one, it has no body.

Thus, you are forced to choose(no pun intended): Is your argument that the "creator" has the right or is your argument that the carrier has the right independently of the creator? The two are mutually exclusive in the case of pregnancy as we are discussing it.

9/9/2005 11:21:03 AM

Naturally the mother AND father create, but the MOTHER ALONE sustains it. she is responsible for the fetus and governs its decision-making, and if SHE feels that the live the fetus would have IS NOT WHAT SHE WANTS FOR IT, then SHE ALONE has the right to exercise her judgement on its behalf.

Quote :

"The two are mutually exclusive in the case of pregnancy as we are discussing it."

a mother is not a creator and carrier of a fetus during a pregnancy simultaneously? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

so she creates it and does not carry it?
or she carries it and did not create it? what surrogate mother would abort the fetus?

the mother and father are creators.
the mother is the carrier.

therefore her right is 2x that of the father.

9/9/2005 3:14:58 PM

That seems silly though - either the baby is a human life or he is not. If he is, then killing him is completely out. I'm not interested in Latin words or anything - I am interested in what scientifically makes you you and makes me me. If you don't know, just say "I don't know" and I will be glad to explain it to you in scientific terms.

9/9/2005 4:41:18 PM

experience along with initial heredity is what makes you who you are.

9/9/2005 6:44:16 PM

if you're going to argue DNA, just do it already and quit displaying your inferiority complex.

9/9/2005 9:10:36 PM

I have not made any arguments - I have asked questions. You have alluded to the right answer, so why don't you just go ahead and answer and get on with it, instead of calling people names? See, when you call people names because they disagree with you, it shows that you really don't know what you're talking about (otherwise you could defend your position). Which begs the question, if you don't know what you're talking about then should you be talking?

9/10/2005 1:17:04 AM

Quote :

"but the MOTHER ALONE sustains it."

so your argument then is that being the creator doesn't matter... A parent also sustains a 3 year old child. Does that mean the parent should be able to quit sustaining it and murder said child?

Quote :

"a mother is not a creator and carrier of a fetus during a pregnancy simultaneously? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?"

nice rebuttal...

Quote :

"so she creates it and does not carry it? or she carries it and did not create it? what surrogate mother would abort the fetus?"

nope, SHE doesn't create it. obviously you didn't read my post. The ENTITY of the mother and father created the child. Thus the ENTITY has the right, by your logic, to make the decision. NOT the mother.

Quote :

"the mother and father are creators. the mother is the carrier. therefore her right is 2x that of the father."

You just don't read fo you? the mother and father INDIVIDUALLY are not the creators. thus, -1 to the mother's right.

who is the carrier would be independent of your argument that the creator has the right. You are backtracking. I've caught you in a web of ignorance and you can't fight your way out. Like I said before: its one or the other. Creator's rights or carrier's rights. They are mutually exclusive.

9/10/2005 1:25:37 AM

if the man doesnt have a say in it, then he shouldn't have to say "here's your child support", should he?

9/10/2005 2:35:52 AM

There is no such thing as an entity of 2 people. this is not the bible where man and woman become one.

Quote :

"so your argument then is that being the creator doesn't matter... A parent also sustains a 3 year old child. Does that mean the parent should be able to quit sustaining it and murder said child?"

you're just being ridiculous, now. a parent is NOT ATTACHED TO A 3 YEAR OLD. that's the inherent difference.

web of ignorance, what a laugh.

a mother and father are both creators of the child. this is fundamental. which results that the mother is responsible for the creation as much as the father, each equally, meaning that each creator has the right to make decisions regarding its welfare.

however, the Mother ALSO sustains the child INSIDE her womb, which makes it a part of her body until it is birthed. Noting that it is a part of her body, she has a 2nd right to make decisions.

There is no entity of 2 people. can i shake this entity's hand? can it play baseball with the fetus? can it buy a soda down the street? it does not exist, it is a figment of your imagination.

9/10/2005 2:44:10 PM

Quote :

"however, the Mother ALSO sustains the child INSIDE her womb, which makes it a part of her body until it is birthed. "

Premise missing, and that is precisely the premise that is incorrect. Just becuase you are inside something doesn't make you a part of that something. Earlier this evening I received my physical sustance inside of IHOP - that does not mean that I am a part of IHOP and that the IHOP people have the right to decide whether I live or die or not. Minus 14 points, try again.

[Edited on September 10, 2005 at 11:13 PM. Reason : add]

9/10/2005 11:13:17 PM

Quote :

"There is no such thing as an entity of 2 people."

yes there is. I can think of an entity of many people recognized by the gov't. its called a church. the people who are members of this church don't get tax breaks, but the church does. The church is an entity as much as the couple is. nice try...

9/11/2005 12:56:03 AM

Quote :

"Earlier this evening I received my physical sustance inside of IHOP - that does not mean that I am a part of IHOP and that the IHOP people have the right to decide whether I live or die or not. Minus 14 points, try again."

HOLY FUCK, your obstinance is FUCKING DISGUSTING. you get a RED CARD; you're out of the game.

Quote :

"I can think of an entity of many people recognized by the gov't."

this entity of the mother and father is not recognized by the US gov't as responsible for the fetus. SOLELY the mother is, regardless if a church is untaxed.

9/11/2005 11:34:15 PM