Abortion

Originally posted by dadudemon
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?

No shit 😐

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Maybe that too.

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

But they aren't. One of them is not chained to the life and wellbeing of another human...can you guess which?

Originally posted by dadudemon
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?

No. I see where you are going, it just doesn't follow from "I think you can abort a fetus". You know?

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

You and my girlfriend agree.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Well, I usually choose 5 for a small one. But, I will keep that in mind, I never noticed it before.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thank you. You can't beat free school, right?

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

Okay. Enough about me now.

The comparison between a 3 month old fetus and a full grown human being with a mental deficiency is totally bogus. There is no equivalent at all. Saying that someone who is in favor of allowing abortion somehow inherently supports murdering a retard is hyperbolic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But they aren't. One of them is not chained to the life and wellbeing of another human...can you guess which?

If you can make that connection.....

Oh, screw it. Just read on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I see where you are going, it just doesn't follow from "I think you can abort a fetus". You know?

Yes. The retarded and old who would die because they can't feed and clothe themselves or even use the bathroom are a huge inconvenience and cost sh*t loads of money. How is that different from a baby again?

In the fetus' defense, at least they can eventually be taught to do those things on their own for a good 70 years of their lives, right?

I don't think a girl should be punished for making an immature decision, so they should abort it ASAP before it becomes inhumane to do so. That's it. I'd say the decision should be made within the first month. (The exception is extreme fat***es who don't even know their pregnant until the baby jumps. Trust me, I worked with one of those. She literally didn't know she was pregnant until her water broke and she went into labor. Her water broke at work! She was that fat. How did she even get pregnant? The dude would had to have been incredibly strong to be able to lift up the pannus to get it on. 😆)

And if they are part of my religion and want to stay part of it and/or fellowshipped, then they can't abort the child unless it's for medical reasons, rape, or incest. That's it. That's my stance. Pretty simple.

I think women should be liberal with pregnacy tests. Maybe we could start a social program to make those free?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You and my girlfriend agree.

You may think you're cute, but you're just a cheeky bastard. I see what you did there.

Originally posted by BackFire
The comparison between a 3 month old fetus and a full grown human being with a mental deficiency is totally bogus. There is no equivalent at all. Saying that someone who is in favor of allowing abortion somehow inherently supports murdering a retard is hyperbolic.

Correct. The fetus will most likely be superior. 😄

Not really relevant to anyones point, that.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not really relevant to anyones point, that.

Yours and my own, maybe?

Maybe just yours.

So you fell into your own trap, then? Well done.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. The retarded and old who would die because they can't feed and clothe themselves or even use the bathroom are a huge inconvenience and cost sh*t loads of money. How is that different from a baby again?

They are conscious and don't physically feed off of another's body and health.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In the fetus' defense, at least they can eventually be taught to do those things on their own for a good 70 years of their lives, right?

Dude, I agree there are arguments that make a fetus look better than an old slacker. But since you already agree to that, you must admit that there is a difference in their situation, so you can't say that one must logically follow from the other. That's my whole point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think a girl should be punished for making an immature decision, so they should abort it ASAP before it becomes inhumane to do so. That's it. I'd say the decision should be made within the first month. (The exception is extreme fat***es who don't even know their pregnant until the baby jumps. Trust me, I worked with one of those. She literally didn't know she was pregnant until her water broke and she went into labor. Her water broke at work! She was that fat. How did she even get pregnant? The dude would had to have been incredibly strong to be able to lift up the pannus to get it on. 😆)

Err, okay.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And if they are part of my religion and want to stay part of it and/or fellowshipped, then they can't abort the child unless it's for medical reasons, rape, or incest. That's it. That's my stance. Pretty simple.

Good stance. I was just attacking that one argument that was illogical.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think women should be liberal with pregnacy tests. Maybe we could start a social program to make those free?

You know my stance on that.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You may think you're cute, but you're just a cheeky bastard. I se what you did there.

Then you must see more than me.

Since when do we allow Germans on this site?

Originally posted by BackFire
Since when do we allow Germans on this site?

I DON'T NEED TO BE AFRAID OF YOU ANYMORE!!!

Tell that to your butt.

Originally posted by BackFire
Tell that to your butt.

I just had an abortion on your bed while you were typing that.

Originally posted by BackFire
I just had an abortion on your bed while you were typing that.

You know a fetus has rights, too.

The right to a cozy garbage dump.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are conscious and don't physically feed off of another's body and health.

I understand that. But that doesn't change what I said. It depends on your perspective. They are both hard to take care of.

So, in your opinion, as soon as the baby is conscious, it should not be aborted? If "yes", how do you measure such a thing?

And, yes, I know that's not what you said.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude, I agree there are arguments that make a fetus look better than an old slacker. But since you already agree to that, you must admit that there is a difference in their situation, so you can't say that one must logically follow from the other. That's my whole point.

They do. And here's how:

they can't feed and clothe themselves or even use the bathroom are a huge inconvenience and cost sh*t loads of money.

I give you your consciousness point and raise you the fetus' potential.

Here's a nice contradictory point for you. When I become too old to be able to take care of myself, I want to die. Abort me, please.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You know my stance on that.

That last statement was just for you, bardock. 😆 😆

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then you must see more than me.

It wouldn't be the first time I've given you credit for a joke or insult that wasn't there. Since I think it's obvious what joke/insult I thought you were making, I won't spend a whole paragrpah explaining it.

You know, the way you initially brought that comparison into the thread is no less than 2 logical fallacies all at once. Possibly 3.

That is extraordinarily impressive.

Originally posted by BackFire
You know, the way you initially brought that comparison into the thread is no less than 2 logical fallacies all at once. Possibly 3.

That is extraordinarily impressive.

Great. Name them and cite the specific examples.

Because it is not a false comparison. (which is the only logical fallacy being argued.)

I don't really feel like giving it too much attention, cause i am playing an excellent RPG at the moment I'd much rather focus my attention on, but, well, I have some weird compulsions.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand that. But that doesn't change what I said. It depends on your perspective. They are both hard to take care of.

So, in your opinion, as soon as the baby is conscious, it should not be aborted? If "yes", how do you measure such a thing?

And, yes, I know that's not what you said.

Good thing it is "No" then. Innit?

Originally posted by dadudemon

They do. And here's how:

Well, in my world they wouldn't. It would be your free choice to pay the money for your granny. Or the old **** pays for it with his own money. He's not attached to your body in life and death. It's a very different kind of dependence. If you ask whether you can cut that dependence...yeah, sure, go ahead.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I give you your consciousness point and raise you the fetus' potential.

S-so? Again you raise differences between the two, that you initially said would be equal.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Here's a nice contradictory point for you. When I become too old to be able to take care of myself, I want to die. Abort me, please.

It's not my duty to kill you. If you want to off yourself, or find someone that wants to off you with your consent. Fine by me.

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.

What's bate?

Secondly, it's a moot point. They're two different kinds of lifeform. One's a living, breathing human being with deficiency, the other isn't, it's a foetus.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

It's not killing people, it's aborting foetuses, get it right.

It's none of your actual business what a woman does with her womb, that's hardcore fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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?

In an ideal world birth would be the limit, so honestly, a long as it's not a pathetically short time limit, then whatever.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Well then I suggest you never have an abortion if you feel it's so wrong. Do not vote based on personal religious or spiritual beliefs, because then you are forcing your beliefs on others.

Personal belief? Yeah, YOURS. Not the people who you will be imposing a law upon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's as irrelevant as your bringing it up. That's all.

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

We don't because people continually let personal feelings get in the way. Like you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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?

No, correct, definitely.

Secondly, most of the arguments against abortion...or all, probably, come from "Well I think...", followed by some kind of random spiritual, religious or ridiculous belief. If you can't make a decision without such influence, then stop making one, especially when it falls upon people who do not care to share your beliefs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Then what did you do? Disagree? The doctor never had all the info, that's why he didn't make the best suggestion.

An informed patient Vs an informed doctor? Exactly, you just wouldn't do it, because the reason you're there is so that someone professionally qualified can help you, as you are not.

If you can't fix your own car, you take it to a mechanic. You don't then argue with him about what's wrong,

Originally posted by dadudemon
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? 😄

Why do you express joy at the idea of having your personal beliefs inflicted upon women, as a male? Really?

I don't consider it smart or clever.

It's because oppressive nutjobs have every profession scared to make a logical decision, "Heaven" forbid they make one that contradicts religion, that's why we don't have a decision.

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

Because "Selfish" isn't part of the murder criteria.

Murder is the unlawful, maliciously intended killing of a human being. As far as I can tell, it's not unlawful, maliciously intended, nor is the foetus a human being. So no.

If you consider abortion to be murder, you're an idiot, because that's flat out ignoring fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.)

It is, it factually is.

Murder is a LEGAL term created to help define a KIND of killing. Killing does not equal murder, and if it does not fit the specific criteria of murder, then it's not murder. That's a fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

Another HUMAN BEING'S life, of which a foetus is not. Having "human" in the title doesn't make you a "human being". Forensic teams refer to things with human as a prefix; human hair, human toenail. They're not actually humans, and neither is a human foetus. It's a foetus.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Partially Non sequitur. Maliciousness is not a perquisite.

"Intent", if the intent is malice, then yes. If it's not, it's usually manslaughter, which isn't murder. Hence why people with "Intent" to kill...a loved one in pain, isn't always looked upon as murder, because it's not malicious intent.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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?

Right and wrong are subjective. Personally? I don't think there should be a limit on abortion, but I accept there will be.

Of course laws can be stupid, like drug laws, but that's because anything you do to your own body is your decision. Like...abortion. Foetus is to do with you and nobody else.

Originally posted by dadudemon
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..)

We spell them that way because it's called English, we're from England, and unlike our Western brothers and sisters; don't actually have a problem with silent letters and non-literal spellings.

Though it's mostly because that's how they're spelled. Although foetus may admittedly just be a British exception, not the true spelling, where as the rest are generally the true spelling.

-AC