How can anyone actually believe that life starts at any time other than the moment of conception?

[CKent]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, go away. Even trolls hate this unresolvable mess of a debate polluting the forum.

Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone.
Don't like child molestation? Don't molest any children.
Don't like torturing animals? Don't torture any animals.

Wow, that was easy.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, I would hope everyone can agree that this kind of simplistic logic is idiotic.

Bad analogies. Bias, much?

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: RBachman
I don't understand how you can see a fetus as more than a clump of cells without the influence of religion.

Ever seen an ultrasound of a three month fetus? Perhaps you should at least educate yourself a bit on human development before deciding where you stand on this issue.

Whoever said pro-life people just want to punish the mother for immoral acts is completely off-base. Yeah, I'm sure there are some Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell types who want to burn people at the stake for having sex outside of marriage, but the vast majority of pro-life people (religious or not) simply want to stop something that they believe to be murder.

I'm quite certain that there are very few people who truly believe there's nothing wrong with aborting a perfectly healthy full-term fetus.
On the other side, I'm pretty sure that there are very few people who truly believe that taking the morning after pill or using an IUD makes a woman a murderer.

But if you don't believe either of those things, how do you decide exactly where you stand between those two extremes?

The fact that so much of it is subjective makes it difficult for anyone to take a middle ground and be able to make an argument as to why their view is correct. This difficulty is why people tend to just pick one side or the other and turn this into a black or white issue.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The relationship between the mother and fetus is the most important consideration, and the rights of the mother to have control over her own body is paramount. Giving rights to the fetus over the mother's own rights is asking the mother to sign her right to her own body to the fetus. In effect, the mother becomes the bodily slave of the fetus. Is it not clearly unethical to make one sign a contract enslaving themself?

Furthermore, this contract would not be between two equal parties. The relationship of the mother to the fetus is NOT one of commensalism between two organisms. It is a relationship of parasitism (take away any negative connotations you have with this word, and keep its simple scientific implications). The fetus depends solely on the mother to live, and gives nothing back in return. The mother should have the right to terminate such a relationship, because the fetus is physiologically dependent on her and withdrawing her energy and resources.

Note that, even should the fetus be conscious, the rights of the mother supercede the (presupposed) rights of the fetus. Why? Because of the "parasitic" nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. Say, hypothetically, that there was an 80 year old man who temporarily needed a blood, oxygen, hormones, water, proteins, antibodies, and so on to live. Could we in our right mind force a woman to be "hooked up" to the man in order to give him a chance to live? The answer is no. And the reason is because this is a parasitic relationship, where we cannot ethically make the mother enslave her bodily rights to the man.

For these reasons alone, the mother has any and all rights to do what she wants with the fetus, since it is as much a part of her body as her left hand.

Probably the most well thought out reply to this thread - I agree.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, go away. Even trolls hate this unresolvable mess of a debate polluting the forum.

Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone.
Don't like child molestation? Don't molest any children.
Don't like torturing animals? Don't torture any animals.

Wow, that was easy.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, I would hope everyone can agree that this kind of simplistic logic is idiotic.

Bad analogies. Bias, much?

How are they bad?
I was using the exact same logic as you to make the point that the logic is flawed.

Don't like something? Don't do it.

See, I'm assuming that you don't like child molestation or murder. So do you think the solution is just for you to choose not do those activities? If not, then you are being too simplistic and haven't addressed the issues. It would be much more effective for you to make an argument about why abortion isn't wrong instead of simply arguing that the solution for any question of right and wrong is for everyone to make their own decision.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The relationship between the mother and fetus is the most important consideration, and the rights of the mother to have control over her own body is paramount. Giving rights to the fetus over the mother's own rights is asking the mother to sign her right to her own body to the fetus. In effect, the mother becomes the bodily slave of the fetus. Is it not clearly unethical to make one sign a contract enslaving themself?

Furthermore, this contract would not be between two equal parties. The relationship of the mother to the fetus is NOT one of commensalism between two organisms. It is a relationship of parasitism (take away any negative connotations you have with this word, and keep its simple scientific implications). The fetus depends solely on the mother to live, and gives nothing back in return. The mother should have the right to terminate such a relationship, because the fetus is physiologically dependent on her and withdrawing her energy and resources.

Note that, even should the fetus be conscious, the rights of the mother supercede the (presupposed) rights of the fetus. Why? Because of the "parasitic" nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. Say, hypothetically, that there was an 80 year old man who temporarily needed a blood, oxygen, hormones, water, proteins, antibodies, and so on to live. Could we in our right mind force a woman to be "hooked up" to the man in order to give him a chance to live? The answer is no. And the reason is because this is a parasitic relationship, where we cannot ethically make the mother enslave her bodily rights to the man.

For these reasons alone, the mother has any and all rights to do what she wants with the fetus, since it is as much a part of her body as her left hand.

Probably the most well thought out reply to this thread - I agree.

Actually, it's quite ridiculous. The comparison to forcing a woman to be "hooked up" to a man is just silly. In the vast majority of cases(you could argue that rape is an exception), nobody is forcing the woman to do anything. Comparing a fetus to a left hand is also pretty far out there.
I assume you approve of full-term abortions. If not, I'd like to know why this same logic no longer applies.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, go away. Even trolls hate this unresolvable mess of a debate polluting the forum.

Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone.
Don't like child molestation? Don't molest any children.
Don't like torturing animals? Don't torture any animals.

Wow, that was easy.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, I would hope everyone can agree that this kind of simplistic logic is idiotic.

Bad analogies. Bias, much?

How are they bad?
I was using the exact same logic as you to make the point that the logic is flawed.

Don't like something? Don't do it.

See, I'm assuming that you don't like child molestation or murder. So do you think the solution is just for you to choose not do those activities? If not, then you are being too simplistic and haven't addressed the issues. It would be much more effective for you to make an argument about why abortion isn't wrong instead of simply arguing that the solution for any question of right and wrong is for everyone to make their own decision.

Your analogies compare tissue removal to heinous crimes.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: RBachman
I don't understand how you can see a fetus as more than a clump of cells without the influence of religion.

Ever seen an ultrasound of a three month fetus? Perhaps you should at least educate yourself a bit on human development before deciding where you stand on this issue.

Whoever said pro-life people just want to punish the mother for immoral acts is completely off-base. Yeah, I'm sure there are some Pat Robertson/Jerry Fallwell types who want to burn people at the stake for having sex outside of marriage, but the vast majority of pro-life people (religious or not) simply want to stop something that they believe to be murder.

I'm quite certain that there are very few people who truly believe there's nothing wrong with aborting a perfectly healthy full-term fetus.
On the other side, I'm pretty sure that there are very few people who truly believe that taking the morning after pill or using an IUD makes a woman a murderer.

But if you don't believe either of those things, how do you decide exactly where you stand between those two extremes?

The fact that so much of it is subjective makes it difficult for anyone to take a middle ground and be able to make an argument as to why their view is correct. This difficulty is why people tend to just pick one side or the other and turn this into a black or white issue.

I'm not arguing that we promote abortions during the second or especially third trimester. This should be a given, but the fundies' only argument is that abortion supporters all want to stuff newborns back inside to kill them, so I guess I have to clarify :roll:

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, go away. Even trolls hate this unresolvable mess of a debate polluting the forum.

Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone.
Don't like child molestation? Don't molest any children.
Don't like torturing animals? Don't torture any animals.

Wow, that was easy.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, I would hope everyone can agree that this kind of simplistic logic is idiotic.

Bad analogies. Bias, much?

How are they bad?
I was using the exact same logic as you to make the point that the logic is flawed.

Don't like something? Don't do it.

See, I'm assuming that you don't like child molestation or murder. So do you think the solution is just for you to choose not do those activities? If not, then you are being too simplistic and haven't addressed the issues. It would be much more effective for you to make an argument about why abortion isn't wrong instead of simply arguing that the solution for any question of right and wrong is for everyone to make their own decision.

Your analogies compare tissue removal to heinous crimes.

I wasn't comparing anything.
I was using his exact logic in a different context to show that it is far too simplistic to have any validity.

But if you want to refer to a fetus with a beating heart, a brain, etc., as tissue, that's a different argument.
Techically, you could say that shooting someone in the head is simply displacing tissue. Child molestation may not even physically damage anything. That doesn't make it right.

I'm only trying to point out that stupid simplistic arguments like "don't like it, don't do it." show a complete lack of either the intelligence or desire to actually debate the subject.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: dangereuxjeux
Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

Wow, that was easy.

Now, go away. Even trolls hate this unresolvable mess of a debate polluting the forum.

Don't like murder? Don't kill anyone.
Don't like child molestation? Don't molest any children.
Don't like torturing animals? Don't torture any animals.

Wow, that was easy.

Regardless of your opinion on abortion, I would hope everyone can agree that this kind of simplistic logic is idiotic.

Bad analogies. Bias, much?

How are they bad?
I was using the exact same logic as you to make the point that the logic is flawed.

Don't like something? Don't do it.

See, I'm assuming that you don't like child molestation or murder. So do you think the solution is just for you to choose not do those activities? If not, then you are being too simplistic and haven't addressed the issues. It would be much more effective for you to make an argument about why abortion isn't wrong instead of simply arguing that the solution for any question of right and wrong is for everyone to make their own decision.

Your analogies compare tissue removal to heinous crimes.

I wasn't comparing anything.
I was using his exact logic in a different context to show that it is far too simplistic to have any validity.

The logic is perfectly valid for practices which don't affect others. If you're against abortion, say so. Don't try to hide behind faulty reasoning.

... lack of ... desire to actually debate the subject.

Oh, the irony :laugh:

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The relationship between the mother and fetus is the most important consideration, and the rights of the mother to have control over her own body is paramount. Giving rights to the fetus over the mother's own rights is asking the mother to sign her right to her own body to the fetus. In effect, the mother becomes the bodily slave of the fetus. Is it not clearly unethical to make one sign a contract enslaving themself?

Furthermore, this contract would not be between two equal parties. The relationship of the mother to the fetus is NOT one of commensalism between two organisms. It is a relationship of parasitism (take away any negative connotations you have with this word, and keep its simple scientific implications). The fetus depends solely on the mother to live, and gives nothing back in return. The mother should have the right to terminate such a relationship, because the fetus is physiologically dependent on her and withdrawing her energy and resources.

Note that, even should the fetus be conscious, the rights of the mother supercede the (presupposed) rights of the fetus. Why? Because of the "parasitic" nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus. Say, hypothetically, that there was an 80 year old man who temporarily needed a blood, oxygen, hormones, water, proteins, antibodies, and so on to live. Could we in our right mind force a woman to be "hooked up" to the man in order to give him a chance to live? The answer is no. And the reason is because this is a parasitic relationship, where we cannot ethically make the mother enslave her bodily rights to the man.

For these reasons alone, the mother has any and all rights to do what she wants with the fetus, since it is as much a part of her body as her left hand.

Probably the most well thought out reply to this thread - I agree.

Actually, it's quite ridiculous. The comparison to forcing a woman to be "hooked up" to a man is just silly. In the vast majority of cases(you could argue that rape is an exception), nobody is forcing the woman to do anything.

It was a hypothetical - if we forced a woman to carry the fetus to term even though she did not want to. If what you say is true, then in the vast majority of cases, the religious right should not be worrying, and I do not see why this is an issue at all.

Comparing a fetus to a left hand is also pretty far out there.
I assume you approve of full-term abortions. If not, I'd like to know why this same logic no longer applies.

Look at the post a little bit above. I believe that the woman should act responsibly, but the government should not be legislating that responsibility. I think late term abortion are in most cases irresponsible and a bad decision if the mothers health is not at risk. However, the same logic applies, so it is her choice.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: BigToque
I don't understand how this can even be a debate...

Because they're so busy making sure that convicted serial murderers who moonlight as serial rapists don't get the death penalty that they forgot to give a ****** about the unborn.

Also, a sense of entitlement overwhelms them when they start ranting about "my body my body" and they forget the choices that they made with THEIR BODY and the rights that the OTHER body growing inside them SHOULD have.

For the record, I'm against capitol punishment. But, if I had to decide where my efforts were going to be spent, I'd defend the unborn. I'm also not ruling out special circumstances where the mother's health is in jeopardy, raped, etc. I'm talking about the fscktards who think abortion is a "way out" of a drunken romp in the hay.

This is why I refuse to associate myself with the Democratic Party.

 

[theMan]

Originally posted by: BigToque

Originally posted by: yllus
So morning after pill = murder?

I sometimes think about why contraception is consider okay in the minds of many, but abortion isn't. Theoretically you're still likely ending a human's life - just before it ever really begins.

The morning after pill is intended to prevent an egg from becomming fertilized.

umm, actually, the egg is fertilled immediately at the time of conception. the morning after pill "kills" the 50 or so cells that are there.

 

[rhino56]

when you say life starts do you mean begins? because that doesnt usually happen until around 30

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: BigToque
I don't understand how this can even be a debate...

Because they're so busy making sure that convicted serial murderers who moonlight as serial rapists don't get the death penalty that they forgot to give a ****** about the unborn.

Also, a sense of entitlement overwhelms them when they start ranting about "my body my body" and they forget the choices that they made with THEIR BODY and the rights that the OTHER body growing inside them SHOULD have.

For the record, I'm against capitol punishment. But, if I had to decide where my efforts were going to be spent, I'd defend the unborn. I'm also not ruling out special circumstances where the mother's health is in jeopardy, raped, etc. I'm talking about the fscktards who think abortion is a "way out" of a drunken romp in the hay.

This is why I refuse to associate myself with the Democratic Party.

P&N is ---> That way.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: BigToque
I don't understand how this can even be a debate...

Because they're so busy making sure that convicted serial murderers who moonlight as serial rapists don't get the death penalty that they forgot to give a ****** about the unborn.

Also, a sense of entitlement overwhelms them when they start ranting about "my body my body" and they forget the choices that they made with THEIR BODY and the rights that the OTHER body growing inside them SHOULD have.

For the record, I'm against capitol punishment. But, if I had to decide where my efforts were going to be spent, I'd defend the unborn. I'm also not ruling out special circumstances where the mother's health is in jeopardy, raped, etc. I'm talking about the fscktards who think abortion is a "way out" of a drunken romp in the hay.

This is why I refuse to associate myself with the Democratic Party.

P&N is ---> That way.

Take your P and N and pound it up your A.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: BigToque
I don't understand how this can even be a debate...

Because they're so busy making sure that convicted serial murderers who moonlight as serial rapists don't get the death penalty that they forgot to give a ****** about the unborn.

Also, a sense of entitlement overwhelms them when they start ranting about "my body my body" and they forget the choices that they made with THEIR BODY and the rights that the OTHER body growing inside them SHOULD have.

For the record, I'm against capitol punishment. But, if I had to decide where my efforts were going to be spent, I'd defend the unborn. I'm also not ruling out special circumstances where the mother's health is in jeopardy, raped, etc. I'm talking about the fscktards who think abortion is a "way out" of a drunken romp in the hay.

This is why I refuse to associate myself with the Democratic Party.

P&N is ---> That way.

Take your P and N and pound it up your A.

What does my attic have to do with this?

 

[Stuxnet]

That was just awesome. That was so hysterical. Seriously. I mean, the common inference would have been "Ass" but you took it to a whole new level by choosing another "A" word with which to associate my instructions. Simply stunning. Wow. I mean, I am laughing so hard and am just so incredibly impressed. You should take that on the road. Seriously. First you hit me with a left by telling me where to find P&N, and then you follow it with a right by nailing me with an ingenius comeback with the word "attic". Wow. I am beside myself. Really. Whew. Where do you come up with these things. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
That was just awesome. That was so hysterical. Seriously. I mean, the common inference would have been "Ass" but you took it to a whole new level by choosing another "A" word with which to associate my instructions. Simply stunning. Wow. I mean, I am laughing so hard and am just so incredibly impressed. You should take that on the road. Seriously. First you hit me with a left by telling me where to find P&N, and then you follow it with a right by nailing me with an ingenius comeback with the word "attic". Wow. I am beside myself. Really. Whew. Where do you come up with these things. Absolutely brilliant.

Thank you, thank you, tips in the glass please