Originally posted by Utsukushii
Really? It's takes two to tango buddy. It takes a sperm. You could've but the condom on.It's never fully the woman's fault, though she's the one left with all the responsibilities, burdens, criticism, and decisions.
It's just as much the man's fault as it is the woman's.
Correct.
Correct.
Incorrect. Men are the gas; women are the brakes.
When the Heart starts to beat that means they are alive. 02 perfusion starts, hemoglobin distributes 02 to organs to keep them ALIVE. Digestion of nutrients for energy to fuel the brain to activate the Central nervious system means they are ALIVE so if there is a beating heart and it is aborted....It IS Murder. But sometimes is absolutely needed. War, Exicution etc
What is intersting to me is When does the Soul activate. The energy from the collective Conscious That Spark that makes us differant from non self aware life
Originally posted by Samurai4Hire
When the Heart starts to beat that means they are alive. 02 perfusion starts, hemoglobin distributes 02 to organs to keep them ALIVE. Digestion of nutrients for energy to fuel the brain to activate the Central nervious system means they are ALIVE so if there is a beating heart and it is aborted....It IS Murder. But sometimes is absolutely needed. War, Exicution etcWhat is intersting to me is When does the Soul activate. The energy from the collective Conscious That Spark that makes us differant from non self aware life
both the sperm and the egg are "alive"...
Originally posted by Robtard
Correct.Correct.
Incorrect. Men are the gas; women are the brakes.
Fine, if you want to go that route, then it SHOULD be the woman's choice on what she does or doesn't do. If she wants/needs to get an abortion then should go and get it.
Here's the bottom line. It IS legal to get an abortion, regardless of the way you feel. It's not something a woman does and is happy about it. If YOU are against abortions, DO NOT GO AND GET ONE. Do you really think that protesting outside the clinics REALLY does anything besides proving that you are as ignorant and cold as they come.
Until you are put in that situation you have NO RIGHT to judge.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The difference between cows and fetuses is that fetuses are at least a "potential" person, where as cows are not. The fetus is a human being, like you or me, only in an earlier stage. A cow never is, nor ever will be a person.
Originally posted by Utsukushii
Fine, if you want to go that route, then it SHOULD be the woman's choice on what she does or doesn't do. If she wants/needs to get an abortion then should go and get it.Here's the bottom line. It IS legal to get an abortion, regardless of the way you feel. It's not something a woman does and is happy about it. If YOU are against abortions, DO NOT GO AND GET ONE. Do you really think that protesting outside the clinics REALLY does anything besides proving that you are as ignorant and cold as they come.
Until you are put in that situation you have NO RIGHT to judge.
Yeah, except what we're talking about could possibly concern another person's life. We're not talking about some woman wanting to get a tattoo, piercing or haircut.
How wonderful, let us bury our heads in the sand and never discuss any given issue to see if it's truly right/correct on the grounds of "well, it's written in the law." At one point in US history Black people weren't considered people (at least not a full person) and slavery was legal. But hey, it was legal so why question it and change it. Marijuana? Too bad. I don't rally or protest, but are you implying we should do away with the Bill of Rights? No more protesting, cos "x" amount of people don't like it.
But yet the law was likely passed by people who didn't ever have an abortion, so, yeah.
Originally posted by inimalist
well, ok, but that would only be true if 99% of women were just having an abortion on a whim.
On a whim? No... I don't think women are having abortions for the heck of it. I think they are having them because they don't want a kid. That doesn't change the fact it was their choice that led to the pregnancy in the first place.
Though, as Utsukushi pointed out. This doesn't really do anything for the debate. I retract that statement.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you are seeing an entirely theoretical possibility that you have no useful evidence for as worse than an actual and demonstrable harm that can be seen being inflicted on the women involved, then your moral compass is at fault.
It isn't a theoretical possibility. It's a straight up possibility.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your example is pointless and ludicrous as 'possibility a child dies' in it is completely unlike the situation with an abortion where the matter is at the extreme edges of science and philosophy- the definition of life.You are also ignoring the huge social and practical issues caused by abortion being unavailable.
The social and practical issues mean absolutely nothing in the face of a human life. Stop trying to derail the main point of the abortion debate. The status of the fetus. Social issues, practical issues, the mothers comfort. NONE of that matters. It all comes down to the status of the fetus.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
These theoretical examples continue to be useless so don't bother. Aside from anything else, you won;t ever convince anyone with silly theoreticals.
I disagree. Hypothetical situations are very helpful in showing just how absurd a stance is. Or by showing the logic a stance holds.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
'Acceptable risk' is a poor term for you to use compared to demonstrable risk. The risk here is not 'acceptable', it is 'theoretical', and that is no basis to override a genuine problem.
Like I said, it isn't just an idea. Hey.. Maybe the fetus is a child. It's a glaring possibility, and needs to be addressed before actions such as killing it can be morally and justifiably carried out.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
And now you are very much putting yourself into a highly questionable position once you start saying "oh the condition is the woman's fault anyway", which misses the point of the whole thing by a country mile- as if that changes the final practicality of the issue. It's an outright sinister view to hold. If we are being generous here, the situation is that you grossly underestimate the impact pregnancy has on women both as individuals and as a group. If we're not being generous, then you are basically being anti-woman.
True, the reason behind pregnancies doesn't influence abortion being right or wrong. It is more an emotional point as apposed to a logical one.
Still, I can see your point. I admit my fault on that one, and retract that statement.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's a very disappointing moral stance you have. Luckily, such a view will never be widely legally accepted.
I disagree, of course. I believe my stance to be the morally justified. At any rate, this has nothing to do with the debate.
Originally posted by GrieverSquall
You are saying that not a single ''person'' here has been able to respond to your question. But why you are asking what a person is if you are already technically saying we are one? Why don't you tell us what it means to be a ''person'' for you, Tac?
What I define a person as is irrelevant. I'm not the one claiming anything is or isn't a person.
Originally posted by inimalist
for him it is pretty easy. Life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm penetrates the egg, you have a life worthy of attributing the "right to life"
I never said that.
Originally posted by King Kandy
But since you admit that you can't define "personhood", you can't actually prove that.
Just because we don't have an absolute definition of a "person" does NOT mean we know absolutely NOTHING about it. For example. We know that you and I are persons. We know that a cow is not a person. And we know that a fetus might be a person. We can know all these things without the need of an absolute definition.
Originally posted by TacDavey
On a whim? No... I don't think women are having abortions for the heck of it. I think they are having them because they don't want a kid. That doesn't change the fact it was their choice that led to the pregnancy in the first place.Though, as Utsukushi pointed out. This doesn't really do anything for the debate. I retract that statement.
fair enough, and i wont press you on it, but bare in mind, in the case of rape, it is still the woman's choice.
Like, obviously you agree there are times when circumstances are beyond the woman's control, such as with a rape. In my mind, it is not you or I who would get to dictate when an individual is in such a circumstance, but rather have them decide.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Just because we don't have an absolute definition of a "person" does NOT mean we know absolutely NOTHING about it. For example. We know that you and I are persons. We know that a cow is not a person. And we know that a fetus might be a person. We can know all these things without the need of an absolute definition.
Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Why?
Because we have rights. A person is something that has rights. We stil don't know why we have rights, or why we deserve them and others don't. It isn't clear, but we know that you and I fit into the category of "person" and a cow doesn't.
It seems you are asking me for the reason we are different than cows. That's the very question I've been asking all of you guys.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Why does being a "person" then entitle you to rights? Why does a person deserve rights, and a cow does not?
That's the question. What makes us deserving of rights when a cow isn't? We don't have a very clear answer, or at least no one has been able to give it to me, but we DO know that a person is not a cow, and that you and I are persons, and that the fetus might be one.
EDIT: Might not have correctly responded here. Why does being a person mean you have rights? Simply, because that's what a person is. By definition, a person is something that has rights.
Originally posted by Utsukushii
Here's the thing, even if abortion became illegal, that won't stop the women from getting them. Abortions have been around for thousands of years.At least having it legalized, women are in a safe, sanitary atmosphere
The argument that "we're gonna do it anyway, so you might as well make it legal" is heavily faulty.
We don't make laws based off of what people will or won't do. That's like saying theft should be made legal because people are just going to do it anyway.
Just because we don't have an absolute definition of a "person" does NOT mean we know absolutely NOTHING about it. For example. We know that you and I are persons. We know that a cow is not a person. And we know that a fetus might be a person. We can know all these things without the need of an absolute definition.
The Planned Parenthood v. Casey Standard states that the fetus begins to have rights at 22 weeks.
And I agree with that (as long as the mother is not in danger), it shouldn't take 5 months to decide to whether you want an abortion or not.