Originally posted by BackFire
*puts shotgun away*Oh...
Gotta run, cops...
LOL
Yeah, aborting a baby once you're so far into the pregnancy is not something I support. I believe it's 5 months? I'd say it should be 3 months. That should give one plenty of time to decide.
I don't like abortion unless it's for medical reasons. I don't support abortion. However, I'm not so retarded that I feel the need to force my religious beliefs on others. I'm still uncertain on the abortion issue as far as non-medical reasons go. I can't wait until the day that technology develops enough to antiquate this whole debate.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, aborting a baby once you're so far into the pregnancy is not something I support. I believe it's 5 months? I'd say it should be 3 months. That should give one plenty of time to decide.
Why is three better than five?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't like abortion unless it's for medical reasons. I don't support abortion. However, I'm not so retarded that I feel the need to force my religious beliefs on others. I'm still uncertain on the abortion issue as far as non-medical reasons go. I can't wait until the day that technology develops enough to antiquate this whole debate.
It won't ever, simply because there are people out there who believe it should be outlawed for good.
If a limit need be set, it needs to be a limit fair to the woman, and scientifically proven in other areas. Not based on religion or "It's a baby".
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriWhy is three better than five?
The human is developed a bit too far for my tastes. If it was a non-human, I'd feel very differently about it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It won't ever, simply because there are people out there who believe it should be outlawed for good.If a limit need be set, it needs to be a limit fair to the woman, and scientifically proven in other areas. Not based on religion or "It's a baby".
-AC
I'm referring to a future where technology develops enough so that:
1. Humans don't actually give birth to babies anymore.
2. There's a switch for just about everyone that you turn on or off to get preggers. This switch doesn't have to be a literaly switch.
Also, as I pointed out above, the baby is developed to much over three months. If it's considered wrong to cause someone to suffer too much during execution even though the criminal has, supposedly, committed horrible crimes, why should an abortion be any different?
Because this stems from you considering a foetus, apparantly, as equal to you or I.
They're not, sorry.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The human is developed a bit too far for my tastes. If it was a non-human, I'd feel very differently about it.
Well your tastes are not to be catered to.
It needs to be objective science, and if five is the limit and scientists have proclaimed that, then that's what it is.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I do prefer that laws applying to every woman, on a scientific subject, be determined fairly by science, as opposed to things not being to a few peoples' tastes, yeah.Silly me.
-AC
hey, I wasn't criticizing you at all, I actually agree with you entirely
however, the only argument against abortion that has ever made sense to me goes sorta like:
-At some point, the fetus becomes an individual that is granted the same right to not be unduly killed as all other people. Anyone can argue this line, but there is a point, be it conception, birth, or some developmental stage in between, there is a point where it HAS to be given that specific right.
-Natal developmental stages are not discrete. AFAIK there are not solid lines between stages, but gradual progression from one to the next. growth of an organism isn't discrete. There may be stages identifiable by different signs, but they aren't set in stone, and all people are variable.
-Because of this, it makes it impossible to draw a solid line describing the point at which the child develops those rights. Because of this, it is unconstitutional to act in ignorance of this line and have an abortion, knowing that there is no definitive way to tell when it is that the fetus should be granted the right not to be killed.
I believe something similar with regards to eating animals and animal rights, so it is salient to me.
I'm not saying no abortions, though I am saying that is a good argument
Then don't draw a line and let her have them whenever she wants, self-paid for.
Ultimately it really is nothing to do with you, and that would remove the "Well I'm not paying with my dollars.".
Realistically, though, in the real world, people will set a legal limit. If five months is fine, then it shouldn't be reduced.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then don't draw a line and let her have them whenever she wants, self-paid for.Ultimately it really is nothing to do with you, and that would remove the "Well I'm not paying with my dollars.".
Realistically, though, in the real world, people will set a legal limit. If five months is fine, then it shouldn't be reduced.
-AC
the child has to get those rights at some point, and there is no way to draw a definitive line as to where that point is. Theoretically, if you had an abortion after that point, it is a murder because what was aborted had legal rights. If this point didn't exist it would mean nobody is granted civil rights.
Because you can't draw the line, you can't risk performing a murder.
like I said before, I personally agree with you, and my counter argument to the above is that there are clear developmental stages that have sort of absolute time limits, so it is possible to draw a line where we are 99.99999999999999999999999999999% confident that we are beyond that point, we just can't know the absolute point itself.
🙂
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because this stems from you considering a foetus, apparantly, as equal to you or I.They're not, sorry.
And you're considering an underdeveloped human being to be less human than you or I,.
They're not, sorry.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well your tastes are not to be catered to.
Yes they are. The last time I checked, I was a registered voter.
And "tastes" wasn't the optimal word. It should have been..
"In my opinion as a student of the human body, I hold that a gestating human greater than 3 months has developed beyond the barrier of a mass of related cells to functioning organ systems. The destruction of life at this point, in my opinion, crosses the moral boundary of acceptable human civility."
But, you know, it's easier to say that other.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It needs to be objective science, and if five is the limit and scientists have proclaimed that, then that's what it is.-AC
Who said that the original number was perfect in design? Scientists can be wrong. Why do you think they determined five? I'm sure a google search could net you the answer.
Also, human sentiment doesn't have to be a scientific derivative. Not every human's motives, opinions, beliefs, etc. have a logic based origin. Humans can be quite illogical, as you know. And what's objective is actually what is accepted as objective. Objectivity is just another "humanism".
Edit-
what inimalist's was pointing out is sort of along the lines of what I'm getting at. I feel that that "point" is set too far, currently. As you do, I feel that for the first little while, it's just a clump of related cells and not a human.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And you're considering an underdeveloped human being to be less human than you or I,.They're not, sorry.
You see the flaw in your comment, right?
Might as well say apple seeds are apples, and sell them as such.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes they are. The last time I checked, I was a registered voter.And "tastes" wasn't the optimal word. It should have been..
"In my opinion as a student of the human body, I hold that a gestating human greater than 3 months has developed beyond the barrier of a mass of related cells to functioning organ systems. The destruction of life at this point, in my opinion, crosses the moral boundary of acceptable human civility."
But, you know, it's easier to say that other.
Yeah, but it's nothing to do with you what a woman does with her own foetus.
It's absolutely, literally none of your business unless it's directly yours.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Who said that the original number was perfect in design? Scientists can be wrong. Why do you think they determined five? I'm sure a google search could net you the answer.
Could be wrong, but are they?
Five isn't bad, and there's no definitive line anyway.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Also, human sentiment doesn't have to be a scientific derivative. Not every human's motives, opinions, beliefs, etc. have a logic based origin. Humans can be quite illogical, as you know. And what's objective is actually what is accepted as objective. Objectivity is just another "humanism".
Yeah, but that's all irrelevant isn't it? Five months is fine, three is fine, four is fine. If you have to pick one, pick one, but don't just decrease it because it would suit YOU, it's not involving you.
Originally posted by inimalist
the child has to get those rights at some point, and there is no way to draw a definitive line as to where that point is. Theoretically, if you had an abortion after that point, it is a murder because what was aborted had legal rights. If this point didn't exist it would mean nobody is granted civil rights.
Then scientists need to definitively determine what qualifies as a human being so that a line can be drawn.
The only argument I've seen for not drawing one is; "Well some people will disagree.", so what? Scientists CAN be wrong, alright, but someone needs to make a decision and they are more qualified than any other profession, or person, to do so.
It can be done, it just isn't because random people think their opinion is as valuable. Just like the Large Hadron Collider bullshit; you wouldn't go to a doctor and argue about his diagnosis.
Originally posted by inimalist
Because you can't draw the line, you can't risk performing a murder.
It's never going to be a murder so long as science determines it to not be a human being.
Murder is a specific legal term in-keeping with specific criteria. If they're not all present, it's not murder.
Murder is the planned, malicious, unlawful killing of a human being.
Abortion isn't malicious or unlawful, and if it's not considered a human being by the people best qualified to judge, then it'll never be murder, and I'm sorry, but "Well we disagree!" doesn't count as an argument.
When you've got a medical degree I'll hear you out.
-AC
I'm not saying no abortions, though I am saying that is a good argument
But wouldn't the line that made the most sense be birth? fetuses that are born become babies, and to kill one is murder. To kill a fetus before it is born is not murder, because it hasn't been born and termed a person yet.
As Dawkins said:
"Birth provides a natural Rubicon- a set boundary with which there can be no argument."
lolz that I reverted to letting someone else explain science for me.