Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*Could.Not will. Could.
By saying it WILL, you are demonising the process of abortion, as if it's robbing anyone of anything. It's not. It's aborting the process, hence the name.
Potential doesn't matter here.
-AC
Then why will you not say it is a human, but potential does not matter?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
*Could.Not will. Could.
By saying it WILL, you are demonising the process of abortion, as if it's robbing anyone of anything. It's not. It's aborting the process, hence the name.
Potential doesn't matter here.
-AC
"Could" is more sugar-coating, it will, is the most likely scenario, miscarriages are far less common than viable births, by comparison. Given you're not pregnant during a famine or the like.
By saying it COULD, is sugar-coating for the sake of not owning up to what someone is doing. I'm not killing a fetus, I'm just aborting a process, all nice and clean, wrapped up in a pretty red bow.
How about "it most likely will become a person", as a compromise between the two?
Originally posted by Robtard
"Could" is more sugar-coating, it will, is the most likely scenario, miscarriages are far less common than viable births, by comparison. Given you're not pregnant during a famine or the like.By saying it COULD, is sugar-coating for the sake of not owning up to what someone is doing. I'm not killing a fetus, I'm just aborting a process, all nice and clean, wrapped up in a pretty red bow.
How about "it most likely will become a person", as a compromise between the two?
It's not sugar-coating. Do I strike you as someone who, if his girlfriend had/wanted to have an abortion, would have problems living with it?
No, I say "Could" because that's what it is. Not out of guilt, I feel no guilt over abortion and nobody ever should, in my opinion.
It WILL become something if you let it, or unless something happens. The other option is not letting it. So the appropriate wording is "Could".
"It most likely will." is also too general. You can't judge every pregnancy on one basis. The chance of it becoming anything differ from woman to woman. If a woman is in doubt, the chance that it will be born is greater. If there's no doubt in a woman's mind that if she gets pregnant, she will abort, then the foetus or cells were never, ever going to become anything.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Well if you spent more time making proper points, like an adult, instead of calling logical thinking "Fail", maybe your points would come across more, and you'd come across like a bitter, tantrum-having child, less.
This is what you'd wish it to be. Too bad it isn't like that in the real world. doped
You think I was having a tantrum? With the sarcasm, silliness, and stupid smilies, you'd think one would know better when reading my posts...I have no idea how to make it less serious for you...
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Not that any of your points make sense anyway. Using "Well, I'm religious." doesn't actually work.
...as if this point wasn't something I already address. 😖hifty:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Logic is like a nailgun, really handy at making everything fit together as it SHOULD, but in your case...you can't use it correctly and are liable to put someone's eye out, so you should steer clear. You are, so...good, I guess.
STOP!
Hammer time.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then the perhaps issue is proving life in a non-abstract manner.
likely, though in the talk of abortion, there is never a point where "nonlife" is involved. eggs and sperm are, themselves, alive.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The argument can be taken to any absurd length you wish, maybe nothing is murder because nothing is real, but for practical purposes and arguments that involve reality I choose to see thought as something real. People think, many animals think, fetuses to do not think; they cannot yet guess about the future or recall the past (also two things that might or might not exist) they can't yet learn or reason.
I'm not trying to take it to absurd lengths. The problem is, for anyone speaking absolutely about what is or isn't a human or what is or isn't thought, these are poignant concerns.
My only point is the difficulty in drawing any of these lines, because they generally suppose some essentialist qualities about humans versus other forms of life, that I don't feel hold up. By no means am I trying to say plants are intelligent life akin to humans, but when defining the line in development when a embryo becomes "humanly intelligent", what it means to have intelligence vs simple reactivity to stimuli is huge.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
AFAIK, without those qualities of thought, be they real or not, something is not sentient/thinking. So to me a fetus isn't yet a person although it is certainly a potential person. A body that has had the brain removed is also no longer a person. A rock is not a person. An individual cell is not a person.
totally. I am being a little academic, as I don't personally think concerns of "humanity" or "cognition" are that important for the abortion issue, because I accept that it is a human child anyways.
Abortion does not become ok the more we are able to dehumanize the embryo. Abortion is a pragmatic solution that needs to be controlled through a medical establishment.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nonetheless I do understand the POV of people who see abortion as murder. It is simply that a) I disagree with them and b) that opens the floodgates for banning it.
I think using the term "murder" is inappropriate, mainly because of the legal ramifications. Murder is a human defined concept that relates to interpersonal aggression, and I would think totally irrelevant to a normal abortion process.
I honestly am against abortion, sort of in the way Robtard is. It would be a major moment in my life if a woman carrying my child had an abortion, and certainly not something I ever want to have happen.
Beyond any other reasoning, the fact that abortions do not go away when they are made illegal is almost reason enough to justify them for me. "Back alley" medicine is not good for society.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not sugar-coating. Do I strike you as someone who, if his girlfriend had/wanted to have an abortion, would have problems living with it?No, I say "Could" because that's what it is. Not out of guilt, I feel no guilt over abortion and nobody ever should, in my opinion.
It WILL become something if you let it, or unless something happens. The other option is not letting it. So the appropriate wording is "Could".
"It most likely will." is also too general. You can't judge every pregnancy on one basis. The chance of it becoming anything differ from woman to woman. If a woman is in doubt, the chance that it will be born is greater. If there's no doubt in a woman's mind that if she gets pregnant, she will abort, then the foetus or cells were never, ever going to become anything.
-AC
Do you fear that some people will make abortions illegal?
You, no. Other people, yes, unless it's sugar-coated for them.
That "will become something" is an arguing point for being against abortion and more to my point, abortion not being sugar-coated.
How is it too general when a pregnancy will most likely end up in a live birth, if it isn't aborted, it simply is fact. Barring accidents and the like.
I don't follow that logic, the act on an abortion doesn't negate a birth that would have happened, "would have" being the functioning words, it negates it actually happening. It's why we have the differentiating words.
edit: that was to AC's post above the Buddhish closet Republican, the Canuck and the Doucheman.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you fear that some people will make abortions illegal?
I think some parties might, but do you really see the Supreme Court turning over Roe v Wade? I can't see them touching it with a 20 foot pole...
From what I can tell, we are way safer here in Canada. Lol, the doctor who fought for abortion rights was given the Order of Canada.
Originally posted by Robtard
I think many a person fears they may become illegal again, me being one of them, though it isn't a shitting my shorts type of fear.
Yes, and I think that there is an effort to dehumanize a fetus. It all boils down to an entrenched mentality. This way of thinking can lead down an evil path, and that unseen future is what bothers me.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, and I think that there is an effort to dehumanize a fetus. It all boils down to an entrenched mentality. This way of thinking can lead down an evil path, and that unseen future is what bothers me.
If you're talking about government funded stem-cell research in the U.S., it's going to happen.
Take the most anti-abortion ranter, break their spine thereby making them quadriplegics and tell them stem-cells can cure them; they'll jump all over that shit, "it's a baby!" be damned.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you fear that some people will make abortions illegal?
No.
I have just enough faith in humanity to believe that will never, ever come to pass in anywhere other than backwater Southern states.
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't follow that logic, the act on an abortion doesn't negate a birth that would have happened, "would have" being the functioning words, it negates it actually happening. It's why we have the differentiating words.
You are putting an option that was never an option, into the situation.
Pregnancy was never the intention for many, and the fact that it happened doesn't mean a thing.
"If left, it will become a child.". Irrelevant, that was never the option. It was never going to be left.
-AC
Originally posted by Robtard
If you're talking about government funded stem-cell research in the U.S., it's going to happen.Take the most anti-abortion ranter, break their spine thereby making them quadriplegics and tell them stem-cells can cure them; they'll jump all over that shit, "it's a baby!" be damned.
No, I wasn't talking about that.
I see both sides of the argument not willing to see the side's point of view. The more they refuse to understand the other view point the more extremist both sides become. Extremism leads to evil.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You are putting an option that was never an option, into the situation.Pregnancy was never the intention for many, and the fact that it happened doesn't mean a thing.
"If left, it will become a child.". Irrelevant, that was never the option. It was never going to be left.
-AC
That hypothetical mother does have an option now, ergo it's an option, regardless if she's the "I never want a child" type, she now has that option of A) Not aborting or B) Aborting.
Surely there are people who became pregnant unintentionally and didn't abort, despite not wanting to ever be parents.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I wasn't talking about that.I see both sides of the argument not willing to see the side's point of view. The more they refuse to understand the other view point the more extremist both sides become. Extremism leads to evil.
Originally posted by BackFire
God, a world without abortion, what a horrid thing. All those healthy happy babies, living. Growing up to be doctors and scientists and teachers and humanitarians. Ewwwwww.
Are you really anti-abortion or just messing around?
And yes, anal should be touted more, especially by the anti-abortion crowd, as should gay-sex, at least until marriage.
Originally posted by Robtard
A fetus is alive and it will become a human being, if left undisturbed (miscarriages withstanding).Semen or a egg alone will not form a human being, so that comparison is absurdly ridiculous, not sure why people keep bringing it up, really, it's just stupid. There is a process, ie a sperm fertilizes an egg, then rapid cell splitting occurs, once this happens, the process of a human life has begun. This is basic biology.
That's a slippery slope, who draws the line when someone is "conscious" enough to be granted the right to live, you, me or? BTW, even at 15 weeks, a fetus response to touch, sound and brain function can be registered.
Having that said, have any abortion you like, just don't sugar-coat it to make yourself feel better. You'd be killing a fetus that would [most likely] become a person, just deal with it and accept your choice.
so its alive because YOU say its alive?!?!?!?!!? ridiculous circular reasoning gives me a headache. the comparison is UTTERLY on the mark. POTENTIALLY sperm and eggs are as significant as zygotes, and even the position you have sex in and the movement you have later or WHEN you decide to have sex can be as significant {As far as POTENTIAL/possibility goes}. so again, if you wanna make a case based on POTENTIAL, then even the fact that you decided to have sex with one woman and not another can be used as reason to blame you{after all, looking from the perspective of the daughter you wud have had with said woman in the future, you are infact a murderer}.
IF however, you wanna base your argument on sumthing LESS ridiculous, for instance, an existing CONCIOUSNESS in BIOLOGY, than the best you can argue against abortion is that its immoral when the BRAIN is too developed. and reflex arcs form BEFORE the higher brain, and it isnt slippery at ALL when discussing stem cell research or abortion in the first three-4 months.
stop bringing up your unfounded oppinions as FACTS.