The Democratic Hopefuls

[Absinthe]

"The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen." - Minority Report

Sorry, but Hollywood quotes aren't applicable here.

That "void or lump" is merely the human life in a very early stage of development.

Is it a person or not? How do you differentiate between virtually identical cells of potential human life and those that make up the skin on your nose? How can a void constitute a human life? If you think a void of mere potential constitutes human life, then do you agree that abstinence is murder?

Clarification: What is the criteria for being a human life with moral rights?

Perhaps if you'd ever met someone who was nearly aborted, you'd get it.

Remember that I admitted there exists reasonable debate at a certain point of development. But if such a person was aborted within the first week or two after his conception, he would have merely not existed. The same exact result would be achieved if his parents had never screwed.

You never answered one of my previous questions. Does a fetus have inferior moral rights to his mother? ie. If the mother's life was in jeopardy, is it acceptable to kill the person growing inside of her?

 

[Geogaddi]

"The fact that you prevented it from happening doesn't change the fact that it was going to happen." - Minority Report
That "void or lump" is merely the human life in a very early stage of development. Perhaps if you'd ever met someone who was nearly aborted, you'd get it.

"Science fiction writers, I am sorry to say, really do not know anything. We can't talk about science, because our knowledge of it is limited and unofficial, and usually our fiction is dreadful."

-Philip K. Dick
Author of Minority Report

 

[repiV]

oh so you didnt say abortion is for the cowardly right? no I must just be making that up ..this doesnt mean what I think it means:

Yes, it is for the cowardly. Lots of things are for the cowardly, that doesn't mean I think they should be banned.

again apples and oranges ..stop twisting my words ..i clearly said you have NO right in making decisions that affect other people's lives ..or will you dance around that too?

And...how exactly have I been making any decisions that affect other people's lives?
What is there to dance around? You're just spouting hysterical bullshit.

hmmm you're the first "pro-choice" person I've ever met who has utter disdain for anyone who actually goes through with an abortion ..and it's justified because women are cowards and couldnt make an decision affecting their lives if you put a gun to their heads

So if I'm so unique, I obviously don't see things in such simple terms as you constantly accuse me of.
I don't need any "justification" for disliking people, but thanks all the same.

again apples and oranges ..you have no right to decide what other people can do with their lives ..stop twisting obvious statements into something that appears to support your idiotic pov ..again you have NO right making a blanket statement that all women who have abortions are cowars because you havent a ****ing clue as to the level of bravery it takes to come to that conclusion so for once get your head out of your conservative ass and try not to be so narrowminded

So, how the **** am I deciding what anyone can do with their lives?
I have every right to make blanket statements, as you do. Try and stop me.
You're one of the most narrowminded, dogmatic, predictable people here (hell, even Solaris surprises me, but I could practically write your posts for you and noone would know the difference).
I find it ironic that you're calling me narrowminded yet I have the most even-handed, middle-of-the-road view of abortion there is. It's you who is narrow-minded, for refusing to consider anyone else's point of view.
Life is tough and so are life decisions, that doesn't give you an excuse to make the wrong decisions. Not holding people accountable for their decisions - that's another cowardly point of view.

Sorry, but Hollywood quotes aren't applicable here.

Something isn't credible just because it was said in a film? You'll have to do better than that.

Is it a person or not? How do you differentiate between virtually identical cells of potential human life and those that make up the skin on your nose? How can a void constitute a human life?

If you think a void of mere potential constitutes human life, then do you agree that abstinence is murder?

Remember that I admitted there exists reasonable debate at a certain point of development. But if such a person was aborted within the first week or two after his conception, he would have merely not existed. The same exact result would be achieved if his parents had never screwed.

No, abstinence is not murder, because nothing has yet been created to allow it to be destroyed. That distinction is obvious.
Of course he would have existed - he would have existed in a very rudimentary and undeveloped form. The eventual result is no different whether the abortion is done at two weeks or eight months and three weeks.

You never answered one of my previous questions. Does a fetus have inferior moral rights to his mother? ie. If the mother's life was in jeopardy, is it acceptable to kill the person growing inside of her?

Yes, obviously. However, in the vast majority of cases, the only thing that's in jeopardy is a woman's right to avoid the pain of a childbirth she was responsible for.

 

[Jerry_111]

David Wu for president!

 

[repiV]

-Philip K. Dick
Author of Minority Report

His quote clearly changes the obvious fact that is expressed in the given line.

 

[jondy]

Ooh, an abortion debate!

 

[Absinthe]

Something isn't credible just because it was said in a film? You'll have to do better than that.

No, you will have to do better with maintaining consistency with your logic.

If I don't impregnate my girlfriend, I'm preventing human life from being brought into this world. By your very own reasoning about potential, any act other than reproductive sex is the collective genocide of tiny souls. That is patently absurd.

No, abstinence is not murder, because nothing has yet been created to allow it to be destroyed. That distinction is obvious.

The only thing created is a zygote (which you still have refused to substantiate as human life), which is nothing more than instructional blueprints for developing any embryo, which in turn is an instructional blueprint for developing the fetus. And even after that point, there are still issues with the absence of a nervous system, let a lone a functioning one.

There's a distinction, but it's a superficial and pointless one since neither the void nor the zygote can constitute human life unless you were to completely remove any value from the term. In such a scenario, the cells on my left buttock would be human life, and scratching it, sitting on it too hard, or merely making contact with the commode would be grievous murder.

Of course he would have existed - he would have existed in a very rudimentary and undeveloped form. The eventual result is no different whether the abortion is done at two weeks or eight months and three weeks.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain how a zygote constitutes a human being. When are you going to do this? Remember, the development of the fetus itself has not even begun to take place with the formation of the zygote. It is essentially a set of instructions.

Yes, obviously. However, in the vast majority of cases, the only thing that's in jeopardy is a woman's right to avoid the pain of a childbirth she was responsible for.

So you admit a moral double standard? Then you also admit that a zygote - or even a fetus - is not to be considered a human being. There is no such thing as a half-human, a quarter-human, or so forth. We don't ascribe moral rights to skin cells, or sperm, or eggs. Because no matter how integral they may be to the development of a human being, they do not equate to one.

A human being either is or he isn't. Even the mentally handicapped have functioning nervous systems and brains. At least they were actually born. To be against abortion and still be supportive of what you would consider murder in certain cases requires some serious mental partitioning.

 

[repiV]

No, you will have to do better with maintaining consistency with your logic.

If I don't impregnate my girlfriend, I'm preventing human life from being brought into this world. By your very own reasoning about potential, any act other than reproductive sex is the collective genocide of tiny souls. That is patently absurd.

It's a completely different kind of potential. You haven't gone down that route yet, so it's solely in the realm of hypothesis. A fetus is real and it is growing.

The only thing created is a zygote (which you still have refused to substantiate as human life), which is nothing more than instructional blueprints for developing any embryo, which in turn is an instructional blueprint for developing the fetus. And even after that point, there are still issues with the absence of a nervous system, let a lone a functioning one.

There's a distinction, but it's a superficial and pointless one since neither the void nor the zygote can constitute human life unless you were to completely remove any value from the term. In such a scenario, the cells on my left buttock would be human life, and scratching it, sitting on it too hard, or merely making contact with the commode would be grievous murder.



I have asked you repeatedly to explain how a zygote constitutes a human being. When are you going to do this? Remember, the development of the fetus itself has not even begun to take place with the formation of the zygote. It is essentially a set of instructions.

Clearly that's different to a fetus. However, I'd never heard the term "zygote" until today. Makes me think of ziggurats...

So you admit a moral double standard? Then you also admit that a zygote - or even a fetus - is not to be considered a human being. There is no such thing as a half-human, a quarter-human, or so forth. We don't ascribe moral rights to skin cells, or sperm, or eggs. Because no matter how integral they may be to the development of a human being, they do not equate to one.

A human being either is or he isn't. Even the mentally handicapped have functioning nervous systems and brains. At least they were actually born. To be against abortion and still be supportive of what you would consider murder in certain cases requires some serious mental partitioning.

It's not a moral double standard at all - under normal circumstances, having a kid and giving it up for adoption creates an incalculable benefit for the kid, at relatively little cost to the woman.
If the woman's life is at stake, the cost/benefit ratio is extremely skewed from the normal situation, so the "right thing" becomes much less of a clear-cut issue.
It doesn't require any mental partitioning whatsoever.

 

[Absinthe]

It's a completely different kind of potential. You haven't gone down that route yet, so it's solely in the realm of hypothesis. A fetus is real and it is growing.

"Different kinds of potential?" I could theoretically cultivate those very same cells into human potential. The argument still stands that the potential of something is not equitable to its actual existence.

Clearly that's different to a fetus. However, I'd never heard the term "zygote" until today. Makes me think of ziggurats...

Even the early formations of the fetus have no developed nervous system or mental capacity. The very things we generally mandate as necessary for something to be considered human and "alive".

It's not a moral double standard at all - under normal circumstances, having a kid and giving it up for adoption creates an incalculable benefit for the kid, at relatively little cost to the woman.

While adoption may be of benefit to the kid that exists (as opposed to dashing its brains out with a rock upon exiting the birth canal), abortion - at least in the early stages of pregnancy - does not bring the child into existence period.

Something can't experience harm or loss if it has not been physically created yet.

If the woman's life is at stake, the cost/benefit ratio is extremely skewed from the normal situation, so the "right thing" becomes much less of a clear-cut issue.
It doesn't require any mental partitioning whatsoever.

It's simple. You have the choice of either killing:

A) The mother: a sentient, developed human being with moral rights.

OR

B) The zygote/fetus: a non-sentient, undeveloped collection of sheer biological matter.

Regardless of whether it's the right thing or not, one of those two will have to die. And by your standards of human life, in which all human beings have equal moral rights, one essentially needs to murdered. Ignoring life-threatening scenarios, having somebody go through with a pregnancy to "learn her lesson" as a form of punishment hardly seems like a good cause for bringing another human being into the world. Fixating the fetus' supposed right to life as a contingency on the person it's connected to is preposterous.

What is your stance on pregnancy in cases of rape?

 

[repiV]

Well I was literally just going to get into bed, so this will be the last post I answer for tonight.

"Different kinds of potential?" I could theoretically cultivate those very same cells into human potential. The argument still stands that the potential of something is not equitable to its actual existence.

Theoretically. Perhaps potential is the wrong word - the human being does exist as a fetus, it just isn't fully developed yet. Where do you draw the line between fetus and baby and so on?
I mean, should we make no big deal about killing babies because they aren't fully developed yet? What's the difference - apart from that they are no longer in the womb? Is it ok to kill premature babies because they should still be in the womb?

Even the early formations of the fetus have no developed nervous system or mental capacity. The very things we generally mandate as necessary for something to be considered human and "alive".

Yes, but it will be human and alive. Barring unforseen circumstances, that is a certainty. You are not killing a potential human, you're killing an undeveloped, but real, human.

While adoption may be of benefit to the kid that exists (as opposed to dashing its brains out with a rock upon exiting the birth canal), abortion - at least in the early stages of pregnancy - does not bring the child into existence period.

In the very early stages, perhaps. Otherwise, the point remains that a baby is still a developing human - just like a fetus. But we don't go around killing babies for personal convinience.

Something can't experience harm or loss if it has not been physically created yet.

But it HAS been physically created - the only difference is we use different terminology to describe unborn babies to born ones.

It's simple. You have the choice of either killing:

A) The mother: a sentient, developed human being with moral rights.

OR

B) The zygote/fetus: a non-sentient, undeveloped collection of sheer biological matter.

Regardless of whether it's the right thing or not, one of those two will have to die. And by your standards of human life, in which all human beings have equal moral rights, one essentially needs to murdered.

I don't think all human beings have equal moral rights, I never said that. A mother's life is clearly worth more than that of an unborn baby (well, unless the mother is a worthless, useless drain on society, but you know...irrelevant). I would also argue that the mother's life is worth more than a baby's life, as the baby is a blank slate who has only the future to lose. That mother has built relationships with lots of people and has paths to finish travelling in life. She means a lot more to the world.

What is your stance on pregnancy in cases of rape?

I would applaud any woman who went ahead with the pregnancy, but I would also completely understand if they didn't.
The other distinction that you probably didn't consider, here, is also that the woman is not responsible for that pregnancy. I can't abide by people who don't take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Aenama]

Its brings me back to this thread




Well I alays concidered Abortion 'genocide', how many deaths have there been?

*head hits desk*

 

[Absinthe]

Theoretically. Perhaps potential is the wrong word - the human being does exist as a fetus, it just isn't fully developed yet.

A life of some kind exists. The question is wether or not it has moral rights equitable to developed humans, if any at all. Since they are lacking the criteria for what we generally accept as living human beings, there's no reason to think they do.

Where do you draw the line between fetus and baby and so on?
I mean, should we make no big deal about killing babies because they aren't fully developed yet? What's the difference - apart from that they are no longer in the womb? Is it ok to kill premature babies because they should still be in the womb?

Infants, even premature ones, have fully functioning nervous systems and cognitive abilities. They are leaps and bounds ahead of developing fetuses in that they actually constitute human beings.

This response satisfies many of the other segmented replies, so quoting them would be redundant.

Yes, but it will be human and alive. Barring unforseen circumstances, that is a certainty. You are not killing a potential human, you're killing an undeveloped, but real, human.

You're still being incongruent. You can't say it will be a human and then one sentence later that it is one. If it's still only potential human life, then the matter needs to be grounded in the present as to what the life currently constitutes. If it is human life, then you're widening the criteria for something to qualify as such to the point of absurdity.

I don't think all human beings have equal moral rights, I never said that. A mother's life is clearly worth more than that of an unborn baby (well, unless the mother is a worthless, useless drain on society, but you know...irrelevant). I would also argue that the mother's life is worth more than a baby's life, as the baby is a blank slate who has only the future to lose. That mother has built relationships with lots of people and has paths to finish travelling in life. She means a lot more to the world.

Again, incongruent. The baby has potential to mean a lot to the world, and you would be robbing it of the opportunity to fulfill it.

But the contradiction aside, I agree that fully developed humans are of more importance and have more imperative moral rights than those of fetuses. Enough that if the mother decides to have an abortion, her choice trumps the life inside of her.

I would applaud any woman who went ahead with the pregnancy, but I would also completely understand if they didn't.
The other distinction that you probably didn't consider, here, is also that the woman is not responsible for that pregnancy. I can't abide by people who don't take responsibility for their actions.

But this just highlights another double standard. Women who get knocked up through their own accidents should go through with the pregnancy, but rape victims shouldn't? While I understand the compassion behind such a mindset, we find ourselves in a very deplorable state of affairs if the life of the unborn can be snubbed out because of another person's crimes. What you are doing, essentially, is punishing the developing human being and depriving it of a fair shake at life. Life with moral rights should not hinge upon the way in which it was conceived. If you think that the organism growing inside of the woman is a genuine human life, then it should make no difference if it was the cause of rape or drunk sex without protection.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, it is for the cowardly. Lots of things are for the cowardly, that doesn't mean I think they should be banned.

you're a hypocrite, did you not say this later on?

I would applaud any woman who went ahead with the pregnancy, but I would also completely understand if they didn't.

you identify with cowardice? so what's it going to be; cowards or people faced with tough choices? The very fact that you can use such an offensive and idiotic term to describe all women who have had to make that decision proves that you're a narrow minded immature little man who feels he can arbitrarily pass judgement on every situation regardless of the circumstances behind each individual case. We may not agree on the majority of things but at least I can say that we have argued in the past on equal footing in terms of being able to support our ideology but this is out of character even for you.

 

[Absinthe]

I also don't understand how, if you consider a fetus to be a human being, you wouldn't also be against banning it. That would simply be compliance with murder.

 

[repiV]

A life of some kind exists. The question is wether or not it has moral rights equitable to developed humans, if any at all. Since they are lacking the criteria for what we generally accept as living human beings, there's no reason to think they do.

Equitable? No. But like you said, that life exists. I do not believe it is acceptable to just throw life away for the sake of personal convinience.

Infants, even premature ones, have fully functioning nervous systems and cognitive abilities. They are leaps and bounds ahead of developing fetuses in that they actually constitute human beings.

This response satisfies many of the other segmented replies, so quoting them would be redundant.

I wouldn't say "fully functioning" cognitive abilities. Cognitive abilities are not fully developed until past adolescence.

You're still being incongruent. You can't say it will be a human and then one sentence later that it is one. If it's still only potential human life, then the matter needs to be grounded in the present as to what the life currently constitutes. If it is human life, then you're widening the criteria for something to qualify as such to the point of absurdity.

You acknowledged yourself that a life exists. Potential is a word that has more than one meaning - what could happen if a course of action was taken, and what will happen as a matter of inevitability are very different things. Perhaps potential is actually the wrong word to describe the latter. Which, in any case, makes the "abstinence is murder" argument invalid.

Again, incongruent. The baby has potential to mean a lot to the world, and you would be robbing it of the opportunity to fulfill it.

Yes, you would. Why is it acceptable to rob unborn humans of that opportunity because having the baby would just be too much effort? It's not like they even have to keep it.

But the contradiction aside, I agree that fully developed humans are of more importance and have more imperative moral rights than those of fetuses. Enough that if the mother decides to have an abortion, her choice trumps the life inside of her.

I think that depends completely on the situation.

But this just highlights another double standard. Women who get knocked up through their own accidents should go through with the pregnancy, but rape victims shouldn't? While I understand the compassion behind such a mindset, we find ourselves in a very deplorable state of affairs if the life of the unborn can be snubbed out because of another person's crimes. What you are doing, essentially, is punishing the developing human being and depriving it of a fair shake at life. Life with moral rights should not hinge upon the way in which it was conceived. If you think that the organism growing inside of the woman is a genuine human life, then it should make no difference if it was the cause of rape or drunk sex without protection.

Women who get knocked up through their own accidents are responsible for their own problems, and as such cannot be compared to rape victims.
I didn't say that it was okay for women who've been raped to have an abortion, I said I would understand. There is a difference.

you're a hypocrite, did you not say this later on?



you identify with cowardice? so what's it going to be; cowards or people faced with tough choices? The very fact that you can use such an offensive and idiotic term to describe all women who have had to make that decision proves that you're a narrow minded immature little man who feels he can arbitrarily pass judgement on every situation regardless of the circumstances behind each individual case. We may not agree on the majority of things but at least I can say that we have argued in the past on equal footing in terms of being able to support our ideology but this is out of character even for you.

How does that make me a hypocrite, and how does that make me identify with cowardice? That makes no sense.
No, you're missing the point, I'm not "arbitrarily passing judgement on every situation regarding of the circumstances". I am basing my argument off the standard situation where someone gets pregnant by accident and decides to have an abortion for the sake of their own convinience. I find it repugnant to take an attitude of indifference or encouragement towards that situation. If there are mitigating circumstances, well, that's very different.

I also don't understand how, if you consider a fetus to be a human being, you wouldn't also be against banning it. That would simply be compliance with murder.

Firstly, like you said, people will have abortions whether it's legal or not. And women will die because it's being done by a dodgy guy in a back alley. That's a purely practical concern.
Secondly, I don't think my beliefs on the issue are valid enough to impose by law on anybody else.
And I believe in small government. It's for people to run their lives, not governments.

 

[Absinthe]

Equitable? No. But like you said, that life exists. I do not believe it is acceptable to just throw life away for the sake of personal convinience.

I said a life exists. Technically, every cell in your body is life, but the only distinction you are making is an abstract concept of "potential", which any cell in your body can be cultivated to create under the proper circumstances.

The issue isn't wether or not it's life, but if it has moral rights. In order to have those, you need to be a sentient human being. If you consider the fetus a human being then it has to have equitable rights to those of adults, otherwise you are either reluctantly accepting that it's not a human or you are employing a dreadful moral double standard. The is no middle ground between being a human and not being a human.

I wouldn't say "fully functioning" cognitive abilities. Cognitive abilities are not fully developed until past adolescence.

And the zygote/fetus has none. It does not think, does not feel, has no memory, has no personality, has nothing that a "person" has except biological mass that - as I have pointed out repeatedly - is not enough to qualify it for moral rights, no matter how much "potential" you may heap onto it.

You acknowledged yourself that a life exists. Potential is a word that has more than one meaning - what could happen if a course of action was taken, and what will happen as a matter of inevitability are very different things. Perhaps potential is actually the wrong word to describe the latter. Which, in any case, makes the "abstinence is murder" argument invalid.

Of course the argument is invalid. That's because it's certifiably retarded. It's a matter that needs to be addressed in the present. It's not even an inevitability since we still have miscarriages (let's charge mom with manslaughter on that one), but even if it was, so what? Why should that matter at all?

This is not the termination of a human being. This is the prevention of one. You can't murder things that don't yet exist.

Yes, you would. Why is it acceptable to rob unborn humans of that opportunity because having the baby would just be too much effort? It's not like they even have to keep it.

Err... That's a question you should be asking yourself. You're the one that admitted that the murder of the unborn is acceptable under certain conditions.

It's a non-issue for me since I have no reason to think any kind of robbery is taking place.

Women who get knocked up through their own accidents are responsible for their own problems, and as such cannot be compared to rape victims.

I didn't say that it was okay for women who've been raped to have an abortion, I said I would understand. There is a difference.

Both have, according to you, tiny human lives growing inside them. The way in which they were conceived is totally irrelevant at this stage. You would condone - wait, understand - the murder of one but not the other.

Pray tell, what exactly is understandable about this? If it's a human being, then it deserves rights, which I do believe would entail not being legally killed because of another person's misfortune. You are, at the very least, idly standing by while children are killed.

And I believe in small government. It's for people to run their lives, not governments.

That's an entirely different issue from morality and ethics.