Abortion

Exactly, but people have their own opinions and, while entitled to them, seem to think that this right comes with credibility.

It doesn't.

There is a natural line; birth, but since that's clearly outrageous to so many, then a limit is impossible to avoid. A pre-birth limit I mean.

If there has to be one, then let those qualified to do so decide where.

-AC

You are supporting a double standard.

[They]seem to think that this right comes with credibility.

It doesn't.

a limit is impossible to avoid.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You are supporting a double standard.

I respect the idea that scientists should make the decision, but they already have. It is birth. A select few (fundies) have decided that it isn't good enough. By ceding to their demand of a different limit, you are validating the validity of their opinion even as you declare it irrelevant. Why should a religious group be allowed to dictate to non-believers? What on earth gives them the credibility to force their opinion on us?

I don't support it as far as believing it's the best option.

It's widely known that I consider any abortion before birth to be alright. However, that will never be good enough, and a limit BESIDES the natural one is impossible to avoid.

If there has to be a pre-birth limit, it should at least be a fair one.

-AC

While you say that their opinion is irrelevant, it has enough merit to acquiesce to. If they disagree with the line drawn at birth, tough. Why should their disagreement be enough to re-write the line simply because they disagree?

I don't think that there should be a limit at all. The church is welcome to tell its followers whatever it wants- they can say that the baby is fully viable from birth. Their [/i]opinion[/i] is not influential enough for me to say that it is worth a pre-birth limit at all.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
While you say that their opinion is irrelevant, it has enough merit to acquiesce to. If they disagree with the line drawn at birth, tough. Why should their disagreement be enough to re-write the line simply because they disagree?

I don't think that there should be a limit at all. The church is welcome to tell its followers whatever it wants- they can say that the baby is fully viable from birth. Their [/i]opinion[/i] is not influential enough for me to say that it is worth a pre-birth limit at all.

You're missing the point, though.

It's all well and good us agreeing, but ultimately, there is going to be a pre-birth limit. It's unrealistic, however correct, to believe that the natural birth limit will ever be adhered to, so it becomes compromise.

-AC

I wasn't arguing practice, I was arguing rhetoric. Of course there will have to be a limit, but there shouldn't have to be.

But in the end there will be. I concede that point.

That's the point, there shouldn't be, in an ideal world.

Like in an ideal world, women could wear whatever they wanted and not necessarily fear for getting raped. Realistically, it's there, so you have to adhere to that and not dress like a ****.

Same with abortion. Shouldn't be a limit, but will be.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You see the flaw in your comment, right?

Might as well say apple seeds are apples, and sell them as such.

AHA! You took the bate. 😆

So, by your logic, we can kill our mentally and physically retarded, old and decrepit, lunatics, or any other sub-standard form of humans, right?

Teehee.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.

That'd be true in an anarchy, now wouldn't it? Since it's not, I most certainly have the right to vote against the killing of the people in my nation, for the most part. It's my business. It's none of your business, however, since this isn't your nation.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Could be wrong, but are they?

Five isn't bad, and there's no definitive line anyway.

It would be inhumane if the fetus' could feel what was happening. That's probably the point that we should cut it off. Don't you agree?

My personal belief is it's wrong to get an abortion when the soul has entered the body. I have no idea when the soul enters the body. I asked God, and he didn't say anthing. LOL.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.

It's as irrelevant as your bringing it up. That's all.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Then scientists need to definitively determine what qualifies as a human being so that a line can be drawn.

If that were that easy, then we'd already have a nice agreeable consensus in the scientific community, now wouldn't we?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.

Correct, sort of. You have to understand that laws are simply the official morals of a society that are punishable if trespassed. Where do those morals come from? If every last human on earth were atheist, I'm sure there would still be discrepancy on when an abortion could be done. Rights are rights and violating one's rights isn't right. Right?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.

Yes, yes you would. Especially if you're an informed patient. You should most certainly argue with a doctor if it contradicts logic. My wife's doctor said she should get an EGD to check for ulcers when the pain was originating and radiating from the upper right quadrant of her abdominal area. I told him that her pain is not from the stomach area and is under the ribs on the right side. He said, "oh...in that case...and EGD would be a poor test, wouldn't it?" He then scheduled her for an ultrasound to look for cholecystitis instead of ulcers.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's never going to be a murder so long as science determines it to not be a human being.

In that case, it's not a human being until it has it's own, very unique, fully functional, DNA set. At that point, it becomes human because it can be tested/measured, replicated, and eventually cloned.

There's your new scientific universal definition of a human. Enjoy.

Now what does that wittle us down to on time, now? Under a month? 😄

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.

Humans are known to murder for selfish reasons. Why would abortion be any different?

Also, just because the law doesn't forbid it, doesn't mean it's not murder. It may not be prosecutable, but it's still murder. (I'm not referring to just abortion this time.)

And, no, maliciousness is not a prerequisite. Simply taking another's life with the intent of taking another's life is murder. And for it to be legally murder, it's the unlawful taking of another's life, willfully.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.

Partially Non sequitur. Maliciousness is not a perquisite.

Also, just because the laws dictate a specific action is unlawful, doesn't mean that law is objectively correct. Is it possible that some laws are immoral? Is it possible that some laws are not "right"? Is it possible that some laws are not based on sound science?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When you've got a medical degree I'll hear you out.

-AC

I'm sure similar things were said about Patrick Arnold, but he was the primary chemist behind the Balco scandal. You don't need a piece of paper to be correct about something, do you?

Why do you spell it foetus? Is that the same reason you spell things like "organisation"? (I mean, is that the British version..)

Originally posted by dadudemon
AHA! You took the bate. 😆

So, by your logic, we can kill our mentally and physically retarded, old and decrepit, lunatics, or any other sub-standard form of humans, right?

Teehee.

I made that argument before, yes, you can. And you'd agree if you thought it through and didn't think of Speshul Timmy out there. If a human being has the same characteristics that a fetus of, lets say, 3 months has, you can euthanise them. Personally, I don't know of even one such case. But, Adam's dying violinist example, gets close (though even then, the subject of the parable is vastly superior to an actual fetus).

Originally posted by Bardock42
I made that argument before, yes, you can. And you'd agree if you thought it through and didn't think of Speshul Timmy out there. If a human being has the same characteristics that a fetus of, lets say, 3 months has, you can euthanise them. Personally, I don't know of even one such case. But, Adam's dying violinist example, gets close (though even then, the subject of the parable is vastly superior to an actual fetus).

Bla bla bla..

So a human that has the potential to be better than you deserves death as well as a human that can never improve?

Great!

WEEEEEEEE!

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bla bla bla..

So a human that has the potential to be better than you deserves death as well as a human that can never improve?

Great!

WEEEEEEEE!

N-no, what I said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
N-no, what I said.

I don't feel like playing word games with you. If you want to argue about word games, feel free to do it with someone else.

You go euthanize them, Bardock. Do it for the children at the very least.

Originally posted by dadudemon
N-no, what I said.

I don't feel like playing word games with you. If you want to argue about word games, feel free to do it with someone else.

You go euthanize them, Bardock. Do it for the children at the very least.

You ****ing idiot. I told you I know of no case where any living person had the same attributes as a 3 months old fetus. Do you?

You compared aborting a fetus to killing someone with a mental handicap. That comparison is illogical. You are saying if you want to kill this "person" with these attributes it must also follow that you want to kill this person with these totally different attributes.

Again, you being a ****, cause you don't understand stuff.

Originally said by Lady Raptastic
Congratulations: Your mother was pro-life --OR-- Congratulations: Your mother could not afford an abortion

The notion that you think you know when a life begins is just as absurd as you knowing you can't possibly know when life begins...despite what you conisider to be the "truth".

Originally posted by Bardock42
You ****ing idiot. I told you I know of no case where any living person had the same attributes as a 3 months old fetus. Do you?

You ****ing idiot! I can't believe you're missing the point. It is not a simple 0 and 1, dumb***.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You compared aborting a fetus to killing someone with a mental handicap. That comparison is illogical.

No it's not, you ****ing dumb***. A fetus with no potential for those handicaps is actually more valuable to society, idiot. Try to think further than you own belly, ****pants.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are saying if you want to kill this "person" with these attributes it must also follow that you want to kill this person with these totally different attributes.

Fail. Why not put it how it REALLY is instead of your misconceived and failed interpretation, ****head?

It is... "Useless person A and useless person B are both useless." DUH!

Now try a little bit harder to use your bored brain, will ya?

Originally posted by Bardock42
gain, you being a ****, cause you don't understand stuff.

Again, you're being a "I'm right, even though I don't what I'm right about" argumentative ***hole, again.

You should be better than this because you're good at maths, remember?

Err, I am pretty sure I know better what my argument is that you were replying to.

Either way, you said to AC that his logic would therefore mean that handicapped people should be killed. I pointed out that, your trap there, isn't correct (incidentally, I think I agree with your rest though, just didn't like that argument).

The thing to me is that fetuses get compared to comatose people (not by you, but by people making stupid anti-abortion arguments), even though the obvious differences between them. The argument goes something like "You think it's okay to kill a fetus, ergo you are okay with killing a kids with down syndrome". Which, I am sure, you realize, doesn't follow.

Was that like the twentieth time you brought up that I study maths? Does it bother you or something? It really shouldn't, you have a good job and obviously a decent education. Neither am I particularly good at maths, in fact I am contemplating to switch courses...maybe that will also help with your insecurities about it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err, I am pretty sure I know better what my argument is that you were replying to.

Great. Now uh...was that supposed to make sense? (Yes, I know what you were trying to say.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Either way, you said to AC that his logic would therefore mean that handicapped people should be killed.

Get it right. They should be ABORTED. 😆

Originally posted by Bardock42
I pointed out that, your trap there, isn't correct (incidentally, I think I agree with your rest though, just didn't like that argument).

Why the **** are you being nice all of a sudden? What the hell is this?

No, it is correct. It is further correct by the fact that the fetus has greater potential.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The thing to me is that fetuses get compared to comatose people (not by you, but by people making stupid anti-abortion arguments), even though the obvious differences between them. The argument goes something like "You think it's okay to kill a fetus, ergo you are okay with killing a kids with down syndrome". Which, I am sure, you realize, doesn't follow.

It does follow, slightly. If the person was comatose all their life, yes, abort that idiot. However, a fetus that has no measurable birth defects is superior. Why is it not as valuable as those other lives if not more so?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Was that like the twentieth time you brought up that I study maths?

Probably closer to seven.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Does it bother you or something?

Not at all. I seem to recall that I said you were good at it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It really shouldn't, you have a good job and obviously a decent education. Neither am I particularly good at maths, in fact I am contemplating to switch courses...maybe that will also help with your insecurities about it.

My job is above average and my education, though it numbers in years, is still not complete. I still don't have a B.S.

Switch to whatever you like. You seemed well enough at math...but what the hell can you do with that other than be a teacher or professor? If you want to be one of those, then puruse the crap out of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Err, I am pretty sure I know better what my argument is that you were replying to.

Either way, you said to AC that his logic would therefore mean that handicapped people should be killed. I pointed out that, your trap there, isn't correct (incidentally, I think I agree with your rest though, just didn't like that argument).

The thing to me is that fetuses get compared to comatose people (not by you, but by people making stupid anti-abortion arguments), even though the obvious differences between them. The argument goes something like "You think it's okay to kill a fetus, ergo you are okay with killing a kids with down syndrome". Which, I am sure, you realize, doesn't follow.

Was that like the twentieth time you brought up that I study maths? Does it bother you or something? It really shouldn't, you have a good job and obviously a decent education. Neither am I particularly good at maths, in fact I am contemplating to switch courses...maybe that will also help with your insecurities about it.

I see no real need to swich course.

Let me play the part I resent:

Mommy: I got preggers! Oh Shit..I should never have ****d him!

Father: Oh shit, I don't want a child! I'm a snowboarding tough guy thqat doesn't want to get married!

Mommy:I could spend the rest of my life payng for this mistake, or I could abort it since I'm the body on which it's feeding and sustaining.

Baby:I might cure Cancer!

Mommy: Oh shit! My Mother is running for Vice President!

Daddy: What the **** have I done?

Mommy: Yes! He'll have to marry me now!

Baby: I just ate a tab of Acid! or Was it bacon? Maybe it was milk!

Mommy: Do I keep it?

Baby: Did I just have a thought? It would be great if I was recording classical music or transcribing the surgeon general's warning! If I had a thought between my ears, I might consider that being a fetus meant that I had a pass on go ticket...at least until the Pope said I didn't. OH **** religion means about as much as a pile of shit! Here I am ....dead and all...and no one is telling me about the mysteris of life and death! Jesus as a cool guy, but totally had it wong! **** this, if Jesus is right, then I'll leave that world to the retards!

Evangelical Christian: so he had it right! Jesus loves me! Thank god we all realize that snakes could talk and that the real garden of Eden was in Missouri.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Great. Now uh...was that supposed to make sense? (Yes, I know what you were trying to say.)

Then just roll with it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Get it right. They should be ABORTED. 😆

You know I'm not into euphemisms. Haha.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why the **** are you being nice all of a sudden? What the hell is this?

Insults put me into my place. It's the only way I know how to communicate. It might also be that I realized there was no point in getting mad about this, you probably just thought I was supporting AC's view. A third theory might be that I like to confuse you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it is correct. It is further correct by the fact that the fetus has greater potential.

But that's one of the things already. The fetus has an additional positive attribute (as you admit yourself) but it also has additional negative (imo) aspects, which, either way, makes the comparison inaccurate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It does follow, slightly. If the person was comatose all their life, yes, abort that idiot. However, a fetus that has no measurable birth defects is superior. Why is it not as valuable as those other lives if not more so?

Well, my favourite points are. No consciousness, only a potential life, oh yeah and THE ****ING PARASITIC NATURE OF IT'S WHOLE EXISTENCE.

The third is really my major one, I think.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Probably closer to seven.

True.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not at all. I seem to recall that I said you were good at it.

Yeah, but that doesn't really disprove the implications of the question.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My job is above average and my education, though it numbers in years, is still not complete. I still don't have a B.S.

Still, good job, and good education.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Switch to whatever you like. You seemed well enough at math...but what the hell can you do with that other than be a teacher or professor? If you want to be one of those, then puruse the crap out of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Insults put me into my place. It's the only way I know how to communicate.

They weren't insults. I thought it was quite obvious that I was mocking you. How often do you seem post like that on a message board?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It might also be that I realized there was no point in getting mad about this, you probably just thought I was supporting AC's view. A third theory might be that I like to confuse you.

I was holding, as evidenced in one of my posts, that you were simply bored. I'm at work, in early early early morning, and no one's computer is broken, so obviously, I fall into that category as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But that's one of the things already. The fetus has an additional positive attribute (as you admit yourself) but it also has additional negative (imo) aspects, which, either way, makes the comparison inaccurate.

They are "both" useless/unproductive/completely parasitic as human beings. That was the similarity I was making. That's it.

One could argue that those old decrepit people have sentimental value in stories to tell their children and just simply existing, but they are draining dollars and are inconvenient. Do those negative reasons begin to draw parallels for you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, my favourite points are. No consciousness, only a potential life, oh yeah and THE ****ING PARASITIC NATURE OF IT'S WHOLE EXISTENCE.

The third is really my major one, I think.

Oddly, I've been saying that for years. Children are evil parasites and only masochists have children.

Originally posted by Bardock42
True.

Off topic.

Do you realize that when someone pulls a number out of their ***, it is usually an odd number AND it is strangely prime?

Observe, next time, when someone brings up a smaller number. It will probably be odd and prime. Examples: "I've washed this shirt 11 times and it's still dirty." "I called you five times and you still didn't answer." "I think there was 23 people there last night."

I have theories for why the number is odd and prime.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but that doesn't really disprove the implications of the question.

Edit- missed this one.

Yes it does. I've insulted your math ablities once, and it wasn't even a literal insult, it was intended to further the point of remembering too many details and to get under your skin for shits and giggles. I've pretty much complimented you on math all the other times, or alluded to the fact that you are good at math.

My previous comment was a "tactic" you've employed yourself. Remember when inimalist said "0 and 1 polarity" and I confused it for psychological jargon when it was simply a statement about absolutes of polarity? And then you said something about my being a IT tech and not seeing that it was simply a binary statement?...

That's what that last comment was about.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Still, good job, and good education.

Thank you. You can't beat free school, right?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Will see.

Ummm, never mind. Do what makes you happy and earns enough money to fit your needs and reasonable wants.