@BobbyDigital: I love them for their stupidity, which is why I was sarcastically responding to him.

We should abort any fetuses that exhibit signs of torturous birth defects. Retardation is fine, but things like Anencephaly, Tay–Sachs disease, or Harlequin type ichthyosis should be destroyed on sight. You're the monster if you bring those children into the world.

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 8:44 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2010 8:43:58 AM

Quote :

"Aside from it being ethically repugnant, who the fuck are we to make that determination? I have a good friend who was born to a 14-year old mother, who's father has been in prison his entire life, but who grew up to get a civil engineering degree from NCSU with good grades, worked for a while in a civil engineering job, and is now an F-18 WSO with a TOP SECRET clearance. In fact, he just finished TOPGUN. Tell him that he never had a chance."

Well , good thing the mother had the freedom to choose whether to carry her baby to term.

Should we start bringing up anecdotes about people who have done horrible things and humanity would have been better had they been aborted? Or children that are born into short inhumane lives of suffering?

Some people are good, some people are bad. The fact that a good person made it to adulthood is no more a reason for banning abortion than bad people making to adulthood is a reason for allowing it.

Quote :

"who the fuck are we to make that determination"

You're right, we aren't worthy to make this call. The mother is.

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 9:00 AM. Reason : .]

7/7/2010 8:59:30 AM

Quote :

"Should we start bringing up anecdotes about people who have done horrible things and humanity would have been better had they been aborted? Or children that are born into short inhumane lives of suffering? Some people are good, some people are bad. The fact that a good person made it to adulthood is no more a reason for banning abortion than bad people making to adulthood is a reason for allowing it."

I recognize that is just an anecdote. Wasn't trying to present it as anything more---certainly not central to my argument.

Quote :

"You're right, we aren't worthy to make this call. The mother is"

No. That's ridiculous. I agree with you in that I don't view a zygote as a human being, but even at that point, I don't view it as part of the mother's body. I'll agree that an unfertilized egg is part of the mother's body--after that i think it qualifies as its own entity. At what point it rates what protections is a seperate debate.

You'll notice, though, that my claim is that it's a matter of at what point it qualifies as human life, not at what point it's no longer part of the mother's body. As fas as I'm concerned, it's never a part of the mother's body, so that has nothing to do with the debate.

Bottom line--the mother is worthy to make that call prior to the point at which the fetus is a human life, but not after.

7/7/2010 9:32:08 AM

a little late to the game, but I'm pro-choice

although, if it was me in most scenarios I wouldn't be able to do it...def not at 27. however, the 16-20 year old me would've thought differently. probably.

7/7/2010 9:32:08 AM

Quote :

"have we at least agreed on a definition of "killing""

How the F are we supposed to have a proper argument if we agree on our definitions. The best arguments are had when one's vocabulary is perpendicular to the others.

7/7/2010 10:23:32 AM

Quote :

"How the F"

7/7/2010 10:29:11 AM

Question for those who say a fetus is not a human, but just a clump of cells....

So can I assume you are against charging someone (for example Scott Peterson) with double murder if they kill a pregnant woman, since you shouldn't get charged for killing something that isn't a human, or even alive by your definition? How is this double standard allowed? Most defend abortion by saying fetus' "aren't really alive" but if the pregnant mom is killed, the unborn child is basically seen as alive and a human being.

7/7/2010 10:40:31 AM

That's correct.

However, in that case, one could argue that if it's the mother's decision to terminate or not terminate the pregnancy, and she gave no indication that she was going to terminate the pregnancy, than she would have carried the fetus to term. The murder, in this case, prevented the pregnancy from being carried to term against the mother's wishes and would thus be considered homicide.

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 10:44 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2010 10:43:04 AM

that's more of a legal double standard than a pro-abortion stance.


Most pro-abortion folks are consistent in believing that a baby inside of a woman is a parasite, and not human.

7/7/2010 10:44:04 AM

^^ You are making an assumption though that the baby would be carried to term, and therefore then be alive. By your reasoning, could one be charged with double homicide by murdering a woman who had a dirty thought, because there was a chance she would have sex and get preggers? We would have to assume it would be carried to term, no? Or what about a woman who was murdered days after becoming pregnant and the baby is obviously too young to survive on its own, should that person still get charged? This creates another line that would have to be drawn, and to me its a legal and moral double standard.

7/7/2010 11:01:33 AM

Uh no

because if we draw a line at which a baby can't be aborted

then we can draw the same line when dealing with murder of pregnant woman

7/7/2010 11:04:21 AM

mofo's problem is that he's assuming that anyone who is pro-abortion is pro-the-minute-before-birth abortion and hasn't actually read the thread. The largest point of contention between most people is the moment between birth and conception where fetus goes from being a lump of cells to being a person.

Of course the anti-abortion crowd loves to say "it's arbitrary, and dishonest if you don't call it killing no matter what the gestational age" because it undermines the idea that we have the technology to make such a call. We do. It's just going to take some case precedence to make it accepted by law.

7/7/2010 12:26:08 PM

If you wear a condom you're preventing a sperm from reaching a zygote and that's literally murder. You should be killed.

7/7/2010 12:42:22 PM

^
That sperm could have become an F-18 WSO with a TOP SECRET clearance!

7/7/2010 12:44:47 PM

what if it's a black rape baby and the black rapist is your dad

7/7/2010 12:47:46 PM

have we at least agreed on a definition of black

7/7/2010 1:37:37 PM

I'm not black if that's what you're referring to.

7/7/2010 1:40:53 PM

Quote :

"BEST TROLLING TOPIC EVER"

7/7/2010 1:41:16 PM

its a trolling topic.

a tropic

7/7/2010 1:42:00 PM

Quote :

"mofo's problem is that he's assuming that anyone who is pro-abortion is pro-the-minute-before-birth abortion and hasn't actually read the thread. The largest point of contention between most people is the moment between birth and conception where fetus goes from being a lump of cells to being a person."

Exactly. That's what the whole debate should be revolve around.

By that logic, I'm pro-choice...I just take a more conservative view of where to draw that line. Notice, too, that I'm not pouring derision towards those who "get" this concept, yet take a differing--yet still reasonable--view of where to draw that line.

The viewpoints I take great issue with are the ones of people who take any of the various fundamentally stupid approaches to arguing which abortions are/are not OK, the "killing a baby and that's ok" philosophy/tortured logic, or the clearly absurd points at which to draw the "human life" line (for example, partial birth abortion is an extreme example, though I think that conception is a silly point, too).

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2010 3:35:11 PM

Quote :

"mofo's problem is that he's assuming that anyone who is pro-abortion is pro-the-minute-before-birth abortion and hasn't actually read the thread. The largest point of contention between most people is the moment between birth and conception where fetus goes from being a lump of cells to being a person. Of course the anti-abortion crowd loves to say "it's arbitrary, and dishonest if you don't call it killing no matter what the gestational age" because it undermines the idea that we have the technology to make such a call. We do. It's just going to take some case precedence to make it accepted by law."

Thats actually not what im arguing at all, and yes I have read the thread. I didnt say those examples were the way I believe, I was just raising a point. For the record I am definitely against late term abortions, as are a lot of people, as I feel it is just irresponsible to wait that long to make that decision. First trimester is a gray area with me and i hope im never in that position, it would be a tough decision. I think that there is a certain period of time where it is just a glob, but its tough to know where to draw the line. But I do think the double standard with double murder bc a woman is pregnant thing needs to be revisited bc i have a hard time justifying one and not the other. That was my point.

7/7/2010 4:38:29 PM

But it's not a double standard. Laci Peterson was 8 months pregnant. The child in her was certainly a person. It's double-homicide and Scott Peterson was convicted as such.

And first trimester is a gray area?
We don't even call a fetus a fetus until the 10th week.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm

7/7/2010 4:44:00 PM

Quote :

"The child in her was certainly a person."

^ ok, fair enough. So how far along would you consider it "a person", and whatever that time frame is that you would consider it a person, why couldn't that be the same for abortions?

(and the gray area is more in reference to my personal opinions/feelings on the issue, not what it should be under the law)

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 4:50 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2010 4:50:17 PM

Quote :

"fundamentally stupid approaches to arguing which abortions are/are not OK, the "killing a baby and that's ok" philosophy/tortured logic"

that's not tortured logic at all.

coming up with some definition of when a "clump of cells" magically converts to human life is what is tortured. and then, go figure, everyone has a different moral pain threshold when it comes to that magical moment. that's tortured and stupid.

7/7/2010 5:01:17 PM

recognizing that as the only metric that really matters is not tortured logic at all.

that, however, does not imply that it is a clearly definable point. i'll be the first to recognize that. that's the whole reason that i'm personally only OK with abortions in the first few weeks after conception--it may be OK for--for the sake of argument--the whole first trimester. Since I'm not sure, I take the conservative approach of drawing my personal line at the first few weeks.

if someone else recognizes the "human life" metric as what's important, but draws the line at, say, the first trimester...or 8.5 weeks..or something else reasonable, I'll certainly make no argument.

It certainly isn't a pretty, clean solution, but it's really the only reasonable option, in my opinion.

7/7/2010 5:31:09 PM

the only reasonable option is to stop kidding yourself and come to terms with the fact that abortion ends life.

but I guess some people just don't have the stomach for such an admission and have to come up with tortured definitions of life in order to avoid simplicity.

7/7/2010 5:47:40 PM

i'm pretty sure that i have more of a stomach for killing than anyone in here...but not for babies. i can't reconcile that.

that, i can't argue with logically the way I will with any other definition for when it is/isn't killing a baby...but admitting that it's killing a baby and STILL being OK with it is even worse. While it isn't a logical failure, I can't view it as anything but an ethical failure.

7/7/2010 5:51:38 PM

what if you aborted via predator drone

7/7/2010 5:55:20 PM

Quote :

"that, i can't argue with logically the way I will with any other definition for when it is/isn't killing a baby...but admitting that it's killing a baby and STILL being OK with it is even worse. While it isn't a logical failure, I can't view it as anything but an ethical failure."

then you're lying to yourself the way a liberal would. You FEEL that abortion should be legal, so you make up stories to rationalize it. That way it seems like while you might be a logical failure at least you're not an ethical failure.

well actually, in the end you're both.

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2010 5:58:24 PM

anyway what the fuck "ethics" does not mean "it is wrong to kill babies"

you can have an ethos of killing babies

shit be ethical as hell

7/7/2010 6:08:49 PM

exactly.

depending on what is weighing on the scales of life and death

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 6:10 PM. Reason : (I was just trying to argue within his universe)]

7/7/2010 6:09:47 PM

Quote :

"anyway what the fuck "ethics" does not mean "it is wrong to kill babies" "

This.

And

Quote :

" that, i can't argue with logically the way I will with any other definition for when it is/isn't killing a baby...but admitting that it's killing a baby and STILL being OK with it is even worse. While it isn't a logical failure, I can't view it as anything but an ethical failure."

If you cannot make a logical argument about your belief, then you need to reevaluate your belief. As it stands, your argument is basically "You have a consistent worldview that historically would produce a higher standard of living in society, but I FEEL it's wrong, so I'll stick with my belief."

7/7/2010 6:15:14 PM

IT'S A LITTLE THING I LIKE TO CALL MY FAITH.

7/7/2010 6:53:18 PM

Quote :

"the only reasonable option is to stop kidding yourself and come to terms with the fact that abortion ends life."

I don't think anyone can argue that it doesn't end life. Obviously the fetus/cell clump is alive.

7/7/2010 7:02:31 PM

picking a scab ends life

7/7/2010 7:04:51 PM

are all PETA people pro-life? Just curious

7/7/2010 7:19:48 PM

Quote :

"anyway what the fuck "ethics" does not mean "it is wrong to kill babies" you can have an ethos of killing babies shit be ethical as hell"

Baby: The Other Other White Meat

7/7/2010 7:23:59 PM

Quote :

"the only reasonable option is to stop kidding yourself and come to terms with the fact that abortion ends life. but I guess some people just don't have the stomach for such an admission and have to come up with tortured definitions of life in order to avoid simplicity."

At absolutely no point has anyone suggested that a sperm, an egg, a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus is ever not alive.

Terminating a pregnancy in the first week of gestation is ending life. Jerking off is ending life. What you meant to say was a life where you have the opinion that a life begins at conception.

That's the only difference, you think that a person's life begins at conception, I think it begins when their brain is formed enough to have higher functions (capability for consciousness). We have the technology to detect such function in fetuses so I'd hardly say that it's arbitrary or magical anymore.

You are suffering from classical Argument from Personal Incredulity. Because you cannot conceive of a way we could determine the moment a fetus becomes a sentient being, there must be no way and thus conception is the only logical point. Luckily there are smarter people than you making decisions for the citizenry of this country.

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ever]

V It wouldn't cause more unwanted children. It would cause more illegal abortions.

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 8:38 PM. Reason : for V]

7/7/2010 8:27:10 PM

there are enough foster children in the world

why force someone to have an unwanted child?

what do all of you anti-abortion people suppose that we do with the influx of unwanted children that making abortion illegal would cause?

7/7/2010 8:33:36 PM

NO MORE SEX

7/7/2010 8:54:21 PM

Quote :

". Because you cannot conceive of a way we could determine the moment a fetus becomes a sentient being, there must be no way and thus conception is the only logical point."

Who's to say that sentient being is what should determine "human life"? your own argument itself manifests the same fallacy you attribute to me. There's no reason to assume that sentience is a proper measure, whether or not we could determine it.

See, this kind of shit is why conception is simply the best point to pick. Occams Razor bitches. The simplest explanation wins.

Everything else is just self satisfying rationalization

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2010 9:18:33 PM

Quote :

"V It wouldn't cause more unwanted children. It would cause more illegal abortions."

actually both

not every woman with an unwanted pregnancy could afford a back-alley abortion back when it was illegal

[Edited on July 7, 2010 at 9:19 PM. Reason : ^just because it's the easiest to objectively measure doesn't make it the best

7/7/2010 9:19:08 PM

What the balls is simple about the idea that a personhood begins at conception? Occams Razor applies when all other factors are eliminated.

It seems reasonable that the capacity for human thought is what makes a human a person. I think therefore I am right? Is a person who is brain dead, but whose heart and lungs are kept going by machinery alive and should be afforded rights as a person?

7/7/2010 10:22:48 PM

Quote :

"It seems reasonable that the capacity for human thought is what makes a human a person. I think therefore I am right? Is a person who is brain dead, but whose heart and lungs are kept going by machinery alive and should be afforded rights as a person? "

Generally, the people against abortion don't this view because a consciousness is lost, it's because a human life is lost. "Life" encompasses more than mere thought, it also can represent the potential of a person.

These people, outside the typical indoctrination by religion, are more resenting the loss of the possibility of a life, than the loss of a mere consciousness.

There are probably countless different ways to "prove" that an embryo at a certain stage has no thought or consciousness, but going down this road is COMPLETELY missing the point of why most anti-abortionists are against abortion.

7/8/2010 12:08:10 AM

Quote :

"the people against abortion don't this view because a consciousness is lost"

and I accidentally 93MB of .rar files...is this dangerous?

7/8/2010 12:17:31 AM

^^If that's their point then it should be intentionally missed.

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 12:22 AM. Reason : ^^]

7/8/2010 12:21:49 AM

^Why?

7/8/2010 12:34:53 AM

Quote :

"IT'S A LITTLE THING I LIKE TO CALL MY FAITH."

[NO], ifyou mean that in the religious sense.

I would be best categorized as agnostic, and I've already argued that abortion is not a religious issue.




also, note that i am not arguing that the beginning of life is important. i'm arguing that the beginning of human life (or more correctly, the point at which we have a human being) is important.

7/8/2010 1:28:29 AM

^^Because then we're talking religiously which is just silly. It certainly wouldn't simplify the issue and we could never reach any type of consensus unless you declare by fiat like Solinari that conception makes sense.

Or, we could use observation and evidence to conclude at what point a clump of cells becomes a person. We use observation and evidence in every other aspect of medicine, why should we revert to mysticism here?

Granted, it's going to take a little bit of philosophy to establish what makes a person a person. I argue that it's the capability for sentient thought. I invite anyone who disagrees to address the brain dead question above so we can continue the discussion on that vein.

7/8/2010 8:43:31 AM

conception just makes the most sense because its the most easily observable and least ambiguous point of time.

Let's agree on this - any criteria for human life is going to arbitrary, whether it is sentience, beating heart, conception, brain wave, disconnection of the umbilical cord, whatever.

Then let's consider each of the criteria for significant differences before and after that milemarker, as well as measurability of that point. Sentience is impossible to measure, beating heart is possible to measure but what makes the heart any more special than liver functions or lung or any other organ? etc. etc.

Just face the facts. Before conception there was no unique organism with specific DNA living a unique life. After conception a new and fully unique organism exists. This is the clearest brightest line possible to determine the starting point of human life.

I'm not arguing against abortion. I support abortion. I just wish you guys had the honesty to admit that abortion kills.

7/8/2010 9:09:42 AM