Poll on Abortion

[Absinthe]

We're all screwed if we can refuse to grant humanity to the unborn for convenience's sake.

Why is that?

 

[MacFall]

But this is just potential. It is not a life. It just has the ability to become one. It's not murder to prevent a life that doesn't exist yet.

Then again, this depends on what you consider to be alive. And that's why abortion debates tend to run around in circles. :\

If we deem a foetus as "not life" because it does not fit our desires, we follow the same line of thinking that justifies slavery, ethnic cleansings, the holocost, etc. The Jews were not human, so it was okay to kill them off. The Hutus decided that the Tutsis were not human, and proceeded to wipe them out. Chairman Mao made it a requrement to worship the state before the state would consider them human. And now, you want to deny the unborn their humanity because they don't fit your image of what a human should be. And who shall make that descision? Who will decide who is human and who is not?

Our bloated and gluttonous government?
The elitist "upper class" that is the medical community?
Psychologists, psychiatrists? A committee of people with degrees in Biology?

The answer is that none of us are smart enough, or selfless enough, to decide when it is okay to "de-humanize" a group of human beings. If you think that we can do that, and remain a free race, then you are either deluded or arrogant beyond my comprehension.

Humanity, in all its forms and classes, must be protected.

 

[MacFall]

Why is that?

see: above post.

 

[Absinthe]

If we deem a foetus as "not life" because it does not fit our desires, we follow the same line of thinking that justifies slavery, ethnic cleansings, the holocost, etc. The Jews were not human, so it was okay to kill them off. The Hutus decided that the Tutsis were not human, and proceeded to wipe them out. Chairman Mao made it a requrement to worship the state before the state would consider them human. And now, you want to deny the unborn their humanity because they don't fit your image of what a human should be. And who shall make that descision? Who will decide who is human and who is not?

Our bloated and gluttonous government?
The elitist "upper class" that is the medical community?
Psychologists, psychiatrists? A committee of people with degrees in Biology?

The answer is that none of us are smart enough, or selfless enough, to decide when it is okay to "de-humanize" a group of human beings. If you think that we can do that, and remain a free race, then you are either deluded or arrogant beyond my comprehension.

Humanity, in all its forms and classes, must be protected.

Whoah, buddy. Are you off your rocker? There is a world of difference between a fully functional and sentient Jew/Tutsi/whatever and a zygote/early-in-development foetus. Not just in terms of biology, but also in morality. Convincing yourself otherwise is delusional.

All your examples of dehumanization were motivated by prejudices and/or lust for power. So unless you can come up with some reason as to why people would have an irrational and negative bias twoards foetuses, or lord over them with a fist of iron, they aren't valid.

BTW you aren't doing your argument any favors when you base it off the assumption that I'm denying something from anything, seeing as how the debate as to when life begins has never reached a verdict.

 

[nick_t]

If we deem a foetus as "not life" because it does not fit our desires, we follow the same line of thinking that justifies slavery, ethnic cleansings, the holocost, etc. The Jews were not human, so it was okay to kill them off. The Hutus decided that the Tutsis were not human, and proceeded to wipe them out. Chairman Mao made it a requrement to worship the state before the state would consider them human. And now, you want to deny the unborn their humanity because they don't fit your image of what a human should be. And who shall make that descision? Who will decide who is human and who is not?

Our bloated and gluttonous government?
The elitist "upper class" that is the medical community?
Psychologists, psychiatrists? A committee of people with degrees in Biology?

The answer is that none of us are smart enough, or selfless enough, to decide when it is okay to "de-humanize" a group of human beings. If you think that we can do that, and remain a free race, then you are either deluded or arrogant beyond my comprehension.

Humanity, in all its forms and classes, must be protected.

Great point. I totally agree.

 

[Absinthe]

Great point. I totally agree.

Then maybe you'll take the time to connect the dots for me, since I don't see how his argument is at all valid.

 

[bvasgm]

Humanity- The condition or quality of being human.
How can you possibly believe that a group of cells qualifies as a human being?

 

[MacFall]

That's the point. It shouldn't have to reach a verdict.

Once again, I make the point: Who should decide what is and isn't human? Who decides, and on what criteria, where the line is drawn?

 

[MacFall]

Humanity- The condition or quality of being human.
How can you possibly believe that a group of cells qualifies as a human being?

The same way that I believe that a group of cells in your head determined to be the center of cognitive thought has worth, and therefore ought not be destroyed without a damn good reason.

 

[Absinthe]

Once again, I make the point: Who should decide what is and isn't human? Who decides, and on what criteria, where the line is drawn?

That elitist, upper-class medical community you apparently have so much disdain for.

Do you consider a zygote to be human life? I mean, with the way you're going, we might as well consider sperm to be human life as well.

Any way, I'm done for tonight.

 

[GiaOmerta]

If it has the potential to become sentinel human life it should not be destroyed.

 

[MacFall]

Good, see you later.
Sperm is not human because it cannot develop into a human. An egg is not a human because it cannot develop into a human. A zyote is, because it will- unless it is prevented from doing so.
And, by the way, are you referring to th same medical community that falsely diagnosed my uncle with anemia when all he had was an iron deficiency? The same one that resisted the marketing of Humologue insulin, which keeps me alive, because they were sure that it would cause erroneous low blood sugar? The same one that has no freaking clue why a brain tumour the size of a marble can just dissapear without a trace?

They are a human institution, and therefore fallible. We can't trust them with that decision. Sorry.

 

[short recoil]

If it has the potential to become sentinel human life it should not be destroyed.

But why should that be?
If you take a test tube, gizz in it and then get a load of eggs from a woman and chuck them in.........then took the tube and left it in a warm place for a day......then incinerated it would you be liable for the murder of thousands?

 

[pomegranate]

I got sick of this after five pages, so I'm just gonna say, 'hur hur, "gizz"'.

 

[GiaOmerta]

But why should that be?
If you take a test tube, gizz in it and then get a load of eggs from a woman and chuck them in.........then took the tube and left it in a warm place for a day......then incinerated it would you be liable for the murder of thousands?

What do you need a test tube for? We've got all the tools we need for the job.

 

[short recoil]

What do you need a test tube for? We've got all the tools we need for the job.

For the fertilization to take place, awnser my question, would it be wrong to do this?
Because when IVF treatment is done there are loads of fertilized cells destroyed......is this wrong, because each one is a potential life as you say?

Please awnser my question properly this time.

 

[baxter]

If it has the potential to become sentinel human life it should not be destroyed.

Potential to become human life?

Arguing this topic at cellular level is silly. Stop comparing cellular life forms to fully conscious human life.

An argument at this level is like comparing a plant (it’s alive) to my mum and dad. Both are alive but my parents are fully conscious living human beings (sometimes).
A living organism like a plant has absolutely no level of self awareness, no consciousness and no feelings what so ever.

 

[kmack]

Arguing this topic at cellular level is silly. Stop comparing cellular life forms to fully conscious human life.

they cant, they believe (based on who knows what) that life begins immediatly after conception.

it is sad really, but these are the people who dont believe in evolution, or that the earth goes around the sun.

just wait a decade or 2 and they will cave, until then, its like throwing a mountain of facts against an even bigger pile of bullsh*t, you may make a small dent, but the load of sh*t stays mostly intact...for a few years/decades/(sigh, sadly)centuries.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Damn those Christians! Should round them up huh kmack?

 

[kmack]

Damn those Christians! Should round them up huh kmack?

no, we should not "round them up", but we should stop them from imposing their will and beliefs on everyone.

 

[GiaOmerta]

I'm not going to lie to you recoil. I don't have all the answers. > Not yet at least. Still working on it.

I'd say the example you provided would be acceptable. Having studied the manner of artifical fertilization, and it's capabalites, and future capabalites I deem the lose of extra fertilization an exceptable lose. An indiviual is created in the process and the body of the mother can not support literaturally a thousand fetuses. So, as I said expectable.

Let me clarify for those who maybe neurology impared.

An argument at this level is like comparing a plant (it’s alive) to my mum and dad. Both are alive but my parents are fully conscious living human beings (sometimes).
A living organism like a plant has absolute no level of self awareness, no consciousness and no feelings what so ever.

Sentinel = Self aware, conscious

A plant is'nt self awake.
Some argue dolphins are sentinel in the sense humans are.

I originally stated.

If it has the potential to become sentinel human life it should not be destroyed.

Meaning, if it has the potential to become a self-aware human, then it should be allowed to live. Some argue "Oh well, cell skins, blah blah blah."
NO. SILENCE! It's not every day skin cells fall off and grow and develope into a seperate person.

Fetuses may not be currently self aware, but come 9 months down the road.

 

[Pogrom]

I'm not going to lie to you recoil. I don't have all the answers. > Not yet at least. Still working on it.

I'd say the example you provided would be acceptable. Having studied the manner of artifical fertilization, and it's capabalites, and future capabalites I deem the lose of extra fertilization an exceptable lose. An indiviual is created in the process and the body of the mother can not support literaturally a thousand fetuses. So, as I said expectable.

What I am understanding from what you are saying is this: The only important thing is for a woman to get pregnant. If she falls pregnant through sex then it is life, and therefore sacred. If she uses invitro-fertilisation then the one fertilised egg chosen is sacred, and the rest are an acceptable sacrifice?

Doesn't make sense to me. We are talking about the exact same package of potential genetic material.

 

[kmack]

Meaning, if it has the potential to become a self-aware human, then it should be allowed to live.

that is your opinion, as a man, who believes that life begins at conception (which it doesnt, and this whole "potential life" thing is pathetic), who will never be raped and forced to bear a child, as a person who will never go through the pain (and potential death) of childbirth, as a person who will never worry about passing a deadly disease to a child through blood, as a person who will never get knocked up. A PERSON who will NEVER need to worry about feeding a child on one paycheck.

your life is cake, your opinion on this matter is worthless.

i want a woman who is raped to have a choice, i want a woman who is single, already has a child, and cant support another, to have a choice. Abortion is an option available to someone who has no other, and it should be just that, an option.

Too many people are too close minded to see that aborting a non-living clump of cells is an alternative that some women must use, not only to help themselves, but to help any other children they have, or to protect that unborn cluster of cells from a harsh life.

I dont think anyone in government has had to deal with this (no single moms on limited income with 3 kids and another on the way make it to congress) and they have NO right to take away this option from those who NEED it.

but then again, this is useless, as you dont care about these women, neither does the government. so **** them, make them have those babies, as soon as it's out of the womb though, you go back to not caring.

 

[baxter]

Let me clarify for those who maybe neurology impared

I think you have just clarified your argument with the above posting.
Funny how when probed people with such deep seated views feel the need to throw insults and resort to any sort of despeation to rebuke other individuals points of view.

 

[Raziaar]

A plant isn't self aware.

Most (thought not all) people agree that human beings have rights. Almost all animal rights theories try to abstract why people think human beings have rights, and then argue that since animal species X has similar cognitive abilities as human beings and should be granted rights.

One issue that receives a lot of attention on both sides of the topic is the extent to which non-human animals are self-aware. Human beings not only think and act in the world, we can step back one level cognitively and think about thinking; we have conceptions of ourselves as self-aware actors who have a rich inner life that is every bit as important as the external actions we take.

There are a lot of different tests and experiments that animal rights activists cite to show that many if not most non-human animal species also have such levels of self-awareness, the problem being that the test becomes more abstract the further you get away from human beings. With primates, for example, there are a number of studies and research efforts on how different primate species conceive of themselves and other individuals, most of which have intriguing if inconclusive results. Once you get down to rats, mice and other animals, however, you find people arguing that because an animal can express pain or can make some simple differentiation between different states of affairs that it must be self-aware.

The problem being that a surprising new study of plants suggests that using the pain/state differentiation criteria, some plant species might be self-aware.

Japanese researchers, in a study published in Nature, reported on their work with lima beans. What they found was that when lima beans are being attacked by spider mites they release a distinctive chemical that performs two functions: it helps attract predators of spider mites and it alerts other plants nearby that spider mites are in the neighborhood. When lima beans are damaged by say a metal tool or by a clumsy animal like a cow, the beans gave off a different chemical which other lima bean plants ignore. The lima bean can distinguish between different types of predators, and can communicate to others of its species what sort of predator is in the neighborhood.

Dr. Junji Takabayashi, who led the research, speculates that "very probably, the spider mites inject some saliva leaves and this acts as an elicitor" for the specific anti-spider mite chemical.

Simple stimuli-response behavior? How different is this, in the end, from what goes on in very primitive animal species that many activists are more than willing to grant rights? After all if a lobster's small repertoire of responses to danger can be considered evidence that it is self-aware in a way substantively close to human self-awareness, why not grant the painful cry of the lima beam similar status?

Source

How plants 'shout attack!' . Jonathan Amos, The BBC, August 3, 2000.

Heh. Take that PETA! Plant murderers.

 

[kmack]

A plant is'nt self awake.

I assume you mean "A plant isn't self aware".

prove it.

 

[baxter]

Meaning, if it has the potential to become a self-aware human, then it should be allowed to live. Some argue "Oh well, cell skins, blah blah blah."
NO. SILENCE! It's not every day skin cells fall off and grow and develope into a seperate person.

Fetuses may not be currently self aware, but come 9 months down the road.

Sorry I do apologies I missed this at the bottom of your rant.Skin cells fall off? and develop into a seperate person ?

You are correct pal maybe I should be SILENT.

 

[GiaOmerta]

That was a nice read Raziaar. Thank you sir.
I admit, I am a bit close minded, but what can I say? I'm Italian.

Hey, you can believe what you want.

your life is cake, your opinion on this matter is worthless.

Who the hell are you to say that?

as you dont care about these women, neither does the government

Not too long ago, I discovered a friend of mine was raped. I was pissed.
"Who did this?"
"What's his name?"
"Where does he live?"

"I'll ****ing kill him." I said to myself.

She never gave me the guy's name or address. I would of killed him if she had.
If she was pregnant, I would of supported her. She's a friend of mine and I'm a goomba with a big heart. Wither it be money or whatever, I would of been there.

You are correct pal maybe I should be SILENT.

Nah, It's all good.

 

[Raziaar]

Hey, you can believe what you want.

Well. I don't believe plants are self aware really... but still, any way to stick it to PETA... the anti human, pro animal purple people kill--- err eater.

 

[Absinthe]

If it has the potential to become sentinel human life it should not be destroyed.

So does a sperm and an egg.

Good, see you later.
Sperm is not human because it cannot develop into a human. An egg is not a human because it cannot develop into a human. A zyote is, because it will- unless it is prevented from doing so.

Again, so will a sperm and an egg. A zygote is not human.

And, by the way, are you referring to th same medical community that falsely diagnosed my uncle with anemia when all he had was an iron deficiency? The same one that resisted the marketing of Humologue insulin, which keeps me alive, because they were sure that it would cause erroneous low blood sugar? The same one that has no freaking clue why a brain tumour the size of a marble can just dissapear without a trace?

So a few accidents are enough for you to justify a fervent hatred for the medical community? The same community that does keep you alive? The same people that is very much responsible for the current standards of health we have today? Sorry about your bad experiences, but I think you're ridiculously biased if you put zero faith in the medical community.

They are a human institution, and therefore fallible. We can't trust them with that decision. Sorry.

Yes, it is a human institution. Yes, it is fallible. Does that mean thet their opinion is invalid? Of course not. If that were the case, we wouldn't have governments, or armies, or education systems. But you trust them, right? Or are you cynical to your very core?

 

[Pressure]

Isn't putting a child up for adoption an alternative to abortion?

 

[The Monkey]

Wearing a condom should be murder from your point of view, after all, you're stopping the progress of life, becasue you don't let the sperm meet the egg. You're preventing a life to star, the same thing as you do when you're having an abortion.

 

[kmack]

Isn't putting a child up for adoption an alternative to abortion?

yes it is, but again thats missing work for some people who cant afford to miss work.

and i think we all know that the foster care solution isnt that at all, it is a long process that wreaks havoc on young children, yes there are sucesses, but it is hardly a perfect system.

 

[kmack]

that is your opinion, as a man, who believes that life begins at conception (which it doesnt, and this whole "potential life" thing is pathetic), who will never be raped and forced to bear a child, as a person who will never go through the pain (and potential death) of childbirth, as a person who will never worry about passing a deadly disease to a child through blood, as a person who will never get knocked up. A PERSON who will NEVER need to worry about feeding a child on one paycheck.

i want a woman who is raped to have a choice, i want a woman who is single, already has a child, and cant support another, to have a choice. Abortion is an option available to someone who has no other, and it should be just that, an option.

Too many people are too close minded to see that aborting a non-living clump of cells is an alternative that some women must use, not only to help themselves, but to help any other children they have, or to protect that unborn cluster of cells from a harsh life.

I dont think anyone in government has had to deal with this (no single moms on limited income with 3 kids and another on the way make it to congress) and they have NO right to take away this option from those who NEED it.

but then again, this is useless, as you dont care about these women, neither does the government. so **** them, make them have those babies, as soon as it's out of the womb though, you go back to not caring.

that was my argument, lets take a look at the response

Not too long ago, I discovered a friend of mine was raped. I was pissed.
"Who did this?"
"What's his name?"
"Where does he live?"

"I'll ****ing kill him." I said to myself.

She never gave me the guy's name or address. I would of killed him if she had.
If she was pregnant, I would of supported her. She's a friend of mine and I'm a goomba with a big heart. Wither it be money or whatever, I would of been there.

oh of course, abortion is justified now because you told someone (one person) you KNOW PERSONALLY you would kill her rapist and support her IF she was pregnant.
not everyone is "lucky" enough to have a friend like you to kill the person who raped them, and then to support them until the child is 18. so again abortion becomes a viable option for women in certain situations, unless of course they have you around :dozey:

 

[shumlya4012]

i want a woman who is raped to have a choice, i want a woman who is single, already has a child, and cant support another, to have a choice. Abortion is an option available to someone who has no other, and it should be just that, an option.

she does have a choice of being more careful with her sex life or not, if she is not, she (and him as well) should take the responsobility for their actions and not rely on the option of abortion

and i think we all know that the foster care solution isnt that at all, it is a long process that wreaks havoc on young children, yes there are sucesses, but it is hardly a perfect system.

yeah, but it doesn't mean that we can't impiment some kind of reforms and imporve the whole system

 

[kmack]

she does have a choice of being more careful with her sex life or not, if she is not, she (and him as well) should take the responsobility for their actions and not rely on the option of abortion

so if she is dragged into her apartment and raped, ya I guess she should be more careful. abortion is an option that MUST be kept to help these women.

yeah, but it doesn't mean that we can't impiment some kind of reforms and imporve the whole system

well , maybe when it is perfect, abortion wont be necessary for some women.
ive said it before, and ill say it again:
i want a woman who is raped to have a choice, i want a woman who is single, already has a child, and cant support another, to have a choice. Abortion is an option available to someone who has no other, and it should be just that, an option.

Too many people are too close minded to see that aborting a non-living clump of cells is an alternative that some women must use, not only to help themselves, but to help any other children they have, or to protect that unborn cluster of cells from a harsh life.

I dont think anyone in government has had to deal with this (no single moms on limited income with 3 kids and another on the way make it to congress) and they have NO right to take away this option from those who NEED it.

but then again, this is useless, as you dont care about these women, neither does the government. so **** them, make them have those babies, as soon as it's out of the womb though, you go back to not caring.

 

[shumlya4012]

so if she is dragged into her apartment and raped, ya I guess she should be more careful. abortion is an option that MUST be kept to help these women.




well , maybe when it is perfect, abortion wont be necessary for some women.
ive said it before, and ill say it again:
i want a woman who is raped to have a choice, i want a woman who is single, already has a child, and cant support another, to have a choice. Abortion is an option available to someone who has no other, and it should be just that, an option.

Too many people are too close minded to see that aborting a non-living clump of cells is an alternative that some women must use, not only to help themselves, but to help any other children they have, or to protect that unborn cluster of cells from a harsh life.

I dont think anyone in government has had to deal with this (no single moms on limited income with 3 kids and another on the way make it to congress) and they have NO right to take away this option from those who NEED it.

but then again, this is useless, as you dont care about these women, neither does the government. so **** them, make them have those babies, as soon as it's out of the womb though, you go back to not caring.

just to clearfy, i wasn't talking about the "rape case" i was talking in general, it would be inhuman to make a woman bare a child after the rape,

only two good cases for abortion are:
rape
danger to mothers health

maybe there are more so point them out if you can

 

[short recoil]

so **** them, make them have those babies, as soon as it's out of the womb though, you go back to not caring.

I'm sure i read those exact words yesterday or something, in this thread i think.
I got the same feeling i get with deja vu, now what does that tell you.

 

[baxter]

I'm sure i read those exact words yesterday or something, in this thread i think.
I got the same feeling i get with deja vu, now what does that tell you.

I agree with you and get that deja vu feeling also.

 

[shumlya4012]

I agree with you and get that deja vu feeling also.

true, the same arguments get passed back and forth, it's hard to change people's perspective on such universal issue as abortion, i say this thread is quete pointless, but then aren't all threads poinless?