Abortion

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You cannot be this stupid.

Your set of premises, i.e. the reasons you believe abortion to be wrong, do not support your conclusion, i.e. that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion in some instances.

To the contrary, your set of premises, i.e. the reasons you believe abortion to be wrong, support the conclusion that a woman does not have a right to choose to have an abortion ever.

For your argument to be valid, you need to change your premises or change your conclusion.

Or better yet, stop spamming this thread with your innane stupidity.

How did i ever claim that a woman never has the right to choose an abortion ?

She has the right to CHOOSE....whether it be the "RIGHT" choice or the "WRONG" choice.

Again the right and wrong of it is all subjective, and i gave enough reason to justify why i think Abortion is wrong in most cases.

But i already stated that my opinion, nor yours, takes away the right of the woman to choose.

So what the hell are you ranting about ?

and btw, using childish insults doesn't strengthen your point. It just makes you sound stupider, so relax.

Originally posted by PrincessMary
I don't care about facts, got that?

In that case, we'll just plug you into the Matrix and you can go be free to defy reality.

Fine, fine, I'll try to clarify what I've said.

How long did it take you to realize abortion =/= murder? A long time. But then what do you immediately bring up? Your view that the fetus is a living human being. And this is totally illogical: "Just because it does not have its own identity does not mean it is not its own life." Let's review some basic biological facts shall we? Cells are alive. Your skin is made up of billions of living cells that will continue to live even after 'you' 'die'. Humans are considered to be the sum of their parts, therefore, their identity is what makes them human.

So really, you would regard any cells that have different DNA than another person to be a seperate entity. Following that, if someone is exposed to radiation, and the cells undergo a change, that would mean that some parts of them are actually different people. That would also mean that twins are not different people.*gasp*Except...that's...illogical.

Unless you want to move into the potentiality argument, which I advise you do not go into, but since you can't be bothered to do just a little reading, I'll explain why.

If you said that something that can become a human being should be protected, and that every time it is disposed of that should be killing, then any waste of sperm or ova would be killing. Masturbating would be mass killing. Women going through their period would be killing every month. Casual sex would be killing. Someone dying would be having many potential people dying. Again, quite illogical.

See the problem now?

Actually, that's illogical. A fetus is not a single-celled organism. No one cares about single-celled organisms.

Oh noes!!11 You murdered sperm!

Yeah, doesn't happen.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Actually, that's illogical. A fetus is not a single-celled organism. No one cares about single-celled organisms.

Oh noes!!11 You murdered sperm!

Yeah, doesn't happen.

A zygote = single-celled organism. Over time, the cells reproduce and develop into a fetus, which is over about...8 weeks. Is there a difference between the two? Well, yes and no. Drawing a line between something larger and smaller is problematic, which is where the argument on abortion stems from. However, I think the old adage sums it up for me: "I think, therefore, I am."

I've gotten kind of bored arguing my point of view. Im going to switch sides for a while.

EVRY SPERM IS SACRD!!1 *firebombs abortion clinic and stalks abortion doctor*

Fine, fine, I'll try to clarify what I've said.

Thanks.

How long did it take you to realize abortion =/= murder? A long time. But then what do you immediately bring up? Your view that the fetus is a living human being. And this is totally illogical: "Just because it does not have its own identity does not mean it is not its own life." Let's review some basic biological facts shall we? Cells are alive. Your skin is made up of billions of living cells that will continue to live even after 'you' 'die'. Humans are considered to be the sum of their parts, therefore, their identity is what makes them human.

It wasn't a matter of realization. It was a matter of understanding that i was using the wrong word. Murder is a legal term and since it is defined by the LAW as such, then i cannot use it for an opinion that contradicts its correct usage.

Before understanding that i was using Murder out of context, i saw murder in a personal and emotionally bias definition. Murder as in unjust killing ,etc.

AC clearly pointed out that that argument will not fly, as he and many other debators here only are convinced by facts, and saying my opinion that abortion is EQUAL to murder will not convince anyone of anything.

So why bother? I kept it to myself, and dropped it.

MY question was how can you PROVE or disprove the immorality of abortion with facts? Morality in this case is subjective, and can be backed up by facts, but not conclusive as to what the actual truth is.

It's all who beleives what's wrong and what's right.

So really, you would regard any cells that have different DNA than another person to be a seperate entity. Following that, if someone is exposed to radiation, and the cells undergo a change, that would mean that some parts of them are actually different people. That would also mean that twins are not different people.*gasp*Except...that's...illogical.

NOPE ......again....need i repeat myself. If a woman is going to get an abortion i encourage her to do so RIGHT AWAY...because the longer she waits, the more "human" the fetus becomes. Within a few months the fetus's brain is already developing. It is not just a cluster of cells at THIS point , it already has arms, legs, a brain, etc.

You are basically comparing a human fetus to bacteria or to a tumor, and i cant beleive you don't see how flawed that analogy is ?

Unless you want to move into the potentiality argument, which I advise you do not go into, but since you can't be bothered to do just a little reading, I'll explain why.

No, I don't. I've READ into it already for your information.

If you said that something that can become a human being should be protected, and that every time it is disposed of that should be killing, then any waste of sperm or ova would be killing. Masturbating would be mass killing. Women going through their period would be killing every month. Casual sex would be killing. Someone dying would be having many potential people dying. Again, quite illogical.

WRONG.....

Masturbating is a natural thing every man and women is entitled to. A sperm is not human yet, until time passes after it fertilizes an egg.

A woman's period is INVOLUNTARY, so even if someone did argue that it's "murder" or some bullshit like that, there is NO choice involved in the matter.

Abortion IS a choice, however.

A human is NOT a sperm or an egg. It's the SUMATION of both.

How can you not see that ?

See the problem now

The ONLY problem I see is that you guys are pissed that i do not have a "Black and White" opinion of the matter.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
How did i ever claim that a woman never has the right to choose an abortion ?

She has the right to CHOOSE....whether it be the "RIGHT" choice or the "WRONG" choice.

Again the right and wrong of it is all subjective, and i gave enough reason to justify why i think Abortion is wrong in most cases.

But i already stated that my opinion, nor yours, takes away the right of the woman to choose.

So what the hell are you ranting about ?

and btw, using childish insults doesn't strengthen your point. It just makes you sound stupider, so relax.

Apparently, you are this stupid.

What is your conclusion? "A woman has the right to choose to have an abortion in some instances."

What is your set of premises? "Abortion is wrong."

How does the set of premises, "abortion is wrong," support the conclusion, "a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion in some instances?"

Or if you prefer, "A woman has the right to choose to have an abortion in some instances," because "Abortion is wrong."

That is why you are arguing like a complete idiot.

If your argument was "A woman does not have the right to choose to have an abortion ever," because "Abortion is wrong," it might actually make sense.

Change your premises or change your conclusion or shut the hell up.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[B]Fine, fine, I'll try to clarify what I've said.

Thanks.

How long did it take you to realize abortion =/= murder? A long time. But then what do you immediately bring up? Your view that the fetus is a living human being. And this is totally illogical: "Just because it does not have its own identity does not mean it is not its own life." Let's review some basic biological facts shall we? Cells are alive. Your skin is made up of billions of living cells that will continue to live even after 'you' 'die'. Humans are considered to be the sum of their parts, therefore, their identity is what makes them human.

It wasn't a matter of realization. It was a matter of understanding that i was using the wrong word. Murder is a legal term and since it is defined by the LAW as such, then i cannot use it for an opinion that contradicts its correct usage.

Before understanding that i was using Murder out of context, i saw murder in a personal and emotionally bias definition. Murder as in unjust killing ,etc.

AC clearly pointed out that that argument will not fly, as he and many other debators here only are convinced by facts, and saying my opinion that abortion is EQUAL to murder will not convince anyone of anything.

So why bother? I kept it to myself, and dropped it.

MY question was how can you PROVE or disprove the immorality of abortion with facts? Morality in this case is subjective, and can be backed up by facts, but not conclusive as to what the actual truth is.

It's all who beleives what's wrong and what's right.

So really, you would regard any cells that have different DNA than another person to be a seperate entity. Following that, if someone is exposed to radiation, and the cells undergo a change, that would mean that some parts of them are actually different people. That would also mean that twins are not different people.*gasp*Except...that's...illogical.

NOPE ......again....need i repeat myself. If a woman is going to get an abortion i encourage her to do so RIGHT AWAY...because the longer she waits, the more "human" the fetus becomes. Within a few months the fetus's brain is already developing. It is not just a cluster of cells at THIS point , it already has arms, legs, a brain, etc.

You are basically comparing a human fetus to bacteria or to a tumor, and i cant beleive you don't see how flawed that analogy is ?

Unless you want to move into the potentiality argument, which I advise you do not go into, but since you can't be bothered to do just a little reading, I'll explain why.

No, I don't. I've READ into it already for your information.

If you said that something that can become a human being should be protected, and that every time it is disposed of that should be killing, then any waste of sperm or ova would be killing. Masturbating would be mass killing. Women going through their period would be killing every month. Casual sex would be killing. Someone dying would be having many potential people dying. Again, quite illogical.

WRONG.....

Masturbating is a natural thing every man and women is entitled to. A sperm is not human yet, until time passes after it fertilizes an egg.

A woman's period is INVOLUNTARY, so even if someone did argue that it's "murder" or some bullshit like that, there is NO choice involved in the matter.

Abortion IS a choice, however.

A human is NOT a sperm or an egg. It's the SUMATION of both.

How can you not see that ?

See the problem now

The ONLY problem I see is that you guys are pissed that i do not have a "Black and White" opinion of the matter. [/B]

You failed to see that the "arms, legs, brain" argument really doesn't work. If the brain fails to develop, and the baby is born, is it still alive? It potentially could, but I'll elaborate in a sec.

You failed to see that the illogical comparisons drawn are only extensions of your own arguments. I need your definition of a human being before continuing, but from what I've seen from you, being human shaped and having the prerequisite 46 chromosomes is enough for you, which is not logical.

So back to the potentiality thing. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but 1 pivotal point in the abortion debate is where a fetus becomes "human". If you do indeed agree with the fact that the fetus is not human, but will eventually become so, there is no reason why sperm and eggs should not also be classified as such. They could, if extracted for storage or used on a regular basis, produce thousands of children. Not exactly a good thing, but not doing so means that thousands of potential humans are "killed".

Flawed logic: yes.
My logic: no.

Originally posted by PrincessMary
I don't think I am stupid for ignoring an opinion I don't happen to agree with. You mean to say you agree with everything the law says? You are not a lawyer so shut it with the so called facts. I don't care about facts, got that? I know what the law says about abortion, but I don't agree. I have the freedom to decide my own opinion on the subject, and if we were not abe to argue that abortion was murder, this thread would never get anywhere. If no one argued abortion was murder, no one could be pro life, could they? Idiot.

You're not ignorning an opinion, you're ignoring a fact. You can't not agree with fact and be taken seriously, because you are wrong. You can continue saying that you disagree with a fact, but you'll always be wrong because it is a fact. The reason we don't get anywhere is because of people like you.

You're an ignorant, foolish person. You ignore facts, why? Do they cloud your judgement? Yes, you prefer to rely on instinct and blind, selfish prejudice don't you? Shut up.

-AC

i will not get an abortion if i become pregnant, but i dont see anything wrong with having the right to choose.

Originally posted by crazylozer
You failed to have the necessary reading comprehension to understand my previous post.

You failed to see that the "arms, legs, brain" argument really doesn't work. If the brain fails to develop, and the baby is born, is it still alive? It potentially could, but I'll elaborate in a sec.

You failed to see that the illogical comparisons drawn are only extensions of your own arguments. I need your definition of a human being before continuing, but from what I've seen from you, being human shaped and having the prerequisite 46 chromosomes is enough for you, which is not logical.

So back to the potentiality thing. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but 1 pivotal point in the abortion debate is where a fetus becomes "human". If you do indeed agree with the fact that the fetus is not human, but will eventually become so, there is no reason why sperm and eggs should not also be classified as such. They could, if extracted for storage or used on a regular basis, produce thousands of children. Not exactly a good thing, but not doing so means that thousands of potential humans are "killed".

Flawed logic: yes.
My logic: no.

I don't consider the Fetus to be a "human being" until around 5 months or so, simply because at this point it feels pain and around this point can hear the sound of it's mothers voice.

However, i consider the Fetus "human" from the moment it BEGINS development.

It's not a chicken, it's not an ant, it's not a worm....it's human.

Many of you guys will define that it's only human once it comes out of the Vagina, and i feel that logic is flawed. You make it as if it was worthless until it comes out of its mother's womb. The moment it touches AIR....OMG it's worth something now !

I never argued on behalf of the potentiality thing, there is nothing wrong with Masturbation...your body disposes of both sperm cells and egg cells on its own, so those are involuntary things that occur, and they are not even close to killing, so please don't play as if i EVER argued such a thing...let's DROP the "potentiality argument" okay? Because neither of us are for it.

Ne ways, I already told you that i am most geared towards Pro-Choice. However, i still beleive that in situations other than the fetus posing a threat to its mother's life, or a situation where rape was involved, -every other situation is most likely killing for one's own convienence.

Bad Logic ?

Killing for Conveience- JUST those very words sound immoral.

NOW....my question to you: What are you actually arguing about against me ? The fact that I think Abortion is immoral in most cases, OR the fact that even though I think Abortion is immoral, I am still in the end, pro-choice ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I don't consider the Fetus to be a "human being" until around 5 months or so, simply because at this point it feels pain and around this point can hear the sound of it's mothers voice.

However, i consider the Fetus "human" from the moment it BEGINS development.

It's not a chicken, it's not an ant, it's not a worm....it's human.

Many of you guys will define that it's only human once it comes out of the Vagina, and i feel that logic is flawed. You make it as if it was worthless until it comes out of its mother's womb. The moment it touches AIR....OMG it's worth something now !

I never argued on behalf of the potentiality thing, there is nothing wrong with Masturbation...your body disposes of both sperm cells and egg cells on its own, so those are involuntary things that occur, and they are not even close to killing, so please don't play as if i EVER argued such a thing...let's DROP the "potentiality argument" okay? Because neither of us are for it.

Ne ways, I already told you that i am most geared towards Pro-Choice. However, i still beleive that in situations other than the fetus posing a threat to its mother's life, or a situation where rape was involved, -every other situation is most likely killing for one's own convienence.

Bad Logic ?

Killing for Conveience- JUST those very words sound immoral.

NOW....my question to you: What are you actually arguing about against me ? The fact that I think Abortion is immoral in most cases, OR the fact that even though I think Abortion is immoral, I am still in the end, pro-choice ?

I think the question is, what is your argument? That abortion is immoral? I think that it is not immoral. What are you going to argue about then? I think that a human, even after he or she matures, is still not human. What will be your argument to that statement? All you can do is disagree. When it comes down to abortion, there is no right or wrong.... no matter how YOU put it.

interesting.

Originally posted by Phoenix2001
I think the question is, what is your argument? That abortion is immoral? I think that it is not immoral. What are you going to argue about then? I think that a human, even after he or she matures, is still not human. What will be your argument to that statement? All you can do is disagree. When it comes down to abortion, there is no right or wrong.... no matter how YOU put it.

"I think that a human, even after he or she matures, is still not human."

Okay let's go by your logic here: A human is not a human.....?
The morality of Abortion is all subjective. True. But part of the Thread's Question was to specify WHERE you stand on this issue and WHY......is not giving your opinion sufficient for you stance?

Okay let's sum this up: The funny thing you don't realize is at the end, we are actually on the SAME SIDE of the debate.

You are Pro-Choice, correct ?

Part of this is because you beleive there is nothing immoral about Abortion...period end of story. Okay...that is a black or white opinion.

I am Pro-Choice

Part of this is because I believe that a woman should be allowed to make her own decisions, moral OR immoral. I simply beleive Abortion is the immoral decision in most cases. So...my opinion is a shade of Grey.

And in response to your final statement, if Abortion is not Right or Wrong no matter how i put it, then NOTHING is right or wrong. Murder, Torture, Theft, Harassment, Rape.....if Abortion lacks morality then SO does everything else. Your logic in this case doesn't comply.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[B]
Okay let's go by your logic here: A human is not a human.....?
The morality of Abortion is all subjective. True. But part of the Thread's Question was to specify WHERE you stand on this issue and WHY......is not giving your opinion sufficient for you stance?

The problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with your stance. You can't say "Killing is wrong! But I'm all for people killing!" Do you see how that doesn't add up?

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
The problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with your stance. You can't say "Killing is wrong! But I'm all for people killing!" Do you see how that doesn't add up?

Which is what I have been trying to explain:

You guys think that Abortion is fine. There is nothing wrong with it. Okay that's cool.

But is THAT the only reason WHY you would allow the woman to have an abortion? She only has freedom of choice as long as she makes the "RIGHT CHOICE"?????

So what if i think she is making the wrong choice? Does that mean I have to take away her right to choose ?

If I were to go and tell someone i dislike to go "**** themselves", and you tell me "no LU, that's wrong. You are no better than the other person for acting in such a way", then you are simply giving me your opinion on the matter.

Does that mean you should ALSO tie me up to a tree, so that i can't make the decision in MY OWN ?

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
The problem is that your opinion doesn't agree with your stance. You can't say "Killing is wrong! But I'm all for people killing!" Do you see how that doesn't add up?

Oh and one more thing...

I never said "But I'm for people killing". I am against that. I am for allowing the choice however.

But it's the mother's vagina that will suffer if she doesn't have the abortion, not my own. So she has more say in the fate of her fetus, than i do.

You can tell people to **** themselves all day for all I care.

The thing is, if you think it's wrong, then it's illogical to agree that it's ok to preform.

"I think stealing is wrong. Therefore I say people should not steal"

"I think stealing is wrong. Therefore I say people should go out and steal"

One of those sentences does not make sense. Maybe you can pick which one it is.

What I'd like to know is why do you think abortion is immoral when it comes to selfish interest, and a woman becoming pregnant out of selfish interest is not immoral? I'm not sure why no one else has brought this up, but I do think it makes a valid point. You call abortion killing out of convenience. What about getting pregnant out of convenience?