Abortion

Originally posted by inimalist
thats the beauty of his position

he never has to provide that, simply say that it is impossible, thus no abortion

is it unfalsifiable, a logical fallacy and a misconstruction of the burden of proof? of course. Is there any real way to argue against it? nope.

A person is an animal in the same way that a dog is an animal, so there is no point in their development where they are not whatever their parents are. The question is are they developed enough to be independent. No multicellular animal is truly independent so the independence we're referring to is the ability to sustain it's own life while disconnected from another life. The life that is sustaining another will ultimately have the choice of whether or not to continue to sustain that other life or not. As long as there is free will, that fact will remain. Unborn babies that could be successfully delivered and are instead aborted have been murdered, because they do not need the mother to sustain life anymore, but the mother wants them dead and still has the ability to kill them herself if she so pleases. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by The MISTER
Let's try anyway! 😄

A person is an animal in the same way that a dog is an animal, so there is no point in their development where they are not whatever their parents are. The question is are they developed enough to be independent. No multicellular animal is truly independent so the independence we're referring to is the ability to sustain it's own life while disconnected from another life. The life that is sustaining another will ultimately have the choice of whether or not to continue to sustain that other life or not. As long as there is free will, that fact will remain. Unborn babies that could be successfully delivered and are instead aborted have been murdered, because they do not need the mother to sustain life anymore, but the mother wants them dead and still has the ability to kill them herself if she so pleases. 😮‍💨

"Self sustaining" will bring up:

'Babies can't sustain themselves, they need the mother (or someone) to feed them, keep them warm, clean after them etc, or they'll die. Only real difference, they can breath on their own."

Originally posted by Robtard
"Self sustaining" will bring up:

'Babies can't sustain themselves, they need the mother (or someone) to feed them, keep them warm, clean after them etc, or they'll die. Only real difference, they can breath on their own."

Non self sustaining baby = A guaranteed death if separated from it's mother

Originally posted by The MISTER
And technically that's wrong because you can leave a baby in a room by itself for a few hours and it will not die it will sleep peacefully, sustaining itself. A baby that isn't developed enough cannot do this.

Non self sustaining baby = A guaranteed death if separated from it's mother

a child of 5 will, without a doubt, die without parental guardianship. all you are doing is saying the amount of time it takes makes it ok to kill the fetus, which is arbitrary

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, like I said, you have a profound misunderstanding about how the burden of proof works.

If I said there were an 8 legged dog, it is not up to you to prove that 8 legged dogs don't exist, but rather for me to prove they do.

If you believe a fetus is a person, it is not up to me to prove it is not, but for you to prove it is.

That's exactly it. I'm not claiming the fetus is a person. By claiming it is alright to kill the fetus, you are claiming the fetus is not a person. So it is YOU who needs to defend your stance that killing the fetus isn't doing anything wrong. YOU are claiming killing the fetus isn't killing a person. The burden of proof is solely on you. I'm not making any claim one way or the other.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it:

Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist—a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records, and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.

The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months—by then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years, or longer still?

What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons; granted, you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

Actually, this example has been brought up already a while back.

The harsh truth is, yes. I don't think the violinist should be unplugged. I think steps should be made to find a way to fix the situation. Maybe a new kidney for the violinist or another volunteer. And I do think it was wrong of the music squad (or whatever they were) to do this in the first place. But the fact remains that it's THEIR fault. Not the violinists. And now it's done, and unplugging the violinist would be killing him against his will for something he did not choose to do.

I honestly hold the right to life as more important than someone's physical comfort. I think the majority of people do. They simply don't accept the fetus as a person with the right to life.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
And why the fetus isn't being treated as a person?

Why? You'd have to ask the other side. Not me. I have no idea why the fetus isn't considered a person. That's what I've been trying to get people to explain to me since I got on this thread but no ones seems to be able to do it.

Originally posted by The MISTER
And technically that's wrong because you can leave a baby in a room by itself for a few hours and it will not die it will sleep peacefully, sustaining itself. A baby that isn't developed enough cannot do this.

Non self sustaining baby = A guaranteed death if separated from it's mother

Except the baby IS guaranteed death if separated from a mother. Sure, it's going to be able to survive a few hours, but it will die if left on it's own.

So basically, you argument is that something is a person if it can survive a few hours on it's own? That doesn't seem logically sound at all.

The fact is the child is still dependent on a mother. It might be able to survive a little longer than a fetus could, but it is still completely dependent on the mother for it's survival.

No, Tacdavey, you are in error. You prove positives, not negatives. You can't ask inimalist to prove it is NOT a person. The burden of proof, 100% and absolutely, is upon you to prove that it is.

If you think otherwise you are simply in logical and rational error and it makes your stance look weak.

Your belief that it is a person doesn't come into that particular argument; he doesn't have to prove anything to you. He isn't simply believing anything; he is rationally doubting it based on lack of evidence.

Originally posted by inimalist
a child of 5 will, without a doubt, die without parental guardianship. all you are doing is saying the amount of time it takes makes it ok to kill the fetus, which is arbitrary

Unless it is raised by wolves, wild dogs or some such. :-)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, Tacdavey, you are in error. You prove positives, not negatives. You can't ask inimalist to prove it is NOT a person. The burden of proof, 100% and absolutely, is upon you to prove that it is.

If you think otherwise you are simply in logical and rational error and it makes your stance look weak.

Your belief that it is a person doesn't come into that particular argument; he doesn't have to prove anything to you. He isn't simply believing anything; he is rationally doubting it based on lack of evidence.

Wrong. We don't kill people. That means when we kill things we make sure they aren't people.

Hypothetical time.

You're out hunting with a buddy of yours. You see a rustling in the bushes near by. Thinking it's a deer, you buddy takes aim. Suddenly you notice that there is a cabin near by, that you know houses a family. And the kids love playing in the bushes around the house. Now you aren't sure if the rustling is a deer, or a kid.

"Wait!" You shout to your buddy. "Don't shoot, that might be a kid!"

You buddy turns to you and goes. "Oh yeah? Prove it. Unless you can prove it's a kid. I'm going to go ahead and shoot it."

You really see nothing wrong with that line of thinking?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wrong. We don't kill people. That means when we kill things we make sure they aren't people.

Hypothetical time.

You're out hunting with a buddy of yours. You see a rustling in the bushes near by. Thinking it's a deer, you buddy takes aim. Suddenly you notice that there is a cabin near by, that you know houses a family. And the kids love playing in the bushes around the house. Now you aren't sure if the rustling is a deer, or a kid.

"Wait!" You shout to your buddy. "Don't shoot, that might be a kid!"

You buddy turns to you and goes. "Oh yeah? Prove it. Unless you can prove it's a kid. I'm going to go ahead and shoot it."

You really see nothing wrong with that line of thinking?

better example:

you are going to go outside

you might die

what do you do?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Why? You'd have to ask the other side. Not me. I have no idea why the fetus isn't considered a person. That's what I've been trying to get people to explain to me since I got on this thread but no ones seems to be able to do it.

I asked why mothers don't go to jail once they performs an abortion, and you responded because fetuses aren't being treated as persons. So I thought you knew. Either way, what is your argument? The fact that we don't know if a fetus should be considered a person? If you're against abortion, I believe you must give an argument about why the fetus SHOULD be considered a person.

Because it will be one day. Duuuh.

Originally posted by inimalist
better example:

you are going to go outside

you might die

what do you do?

That isn't a better example. I've gone outside over and over and over throughout the span of my life with no problems. So it isn't logical to think I'd suddenly die.

The same level of certainty cannot be applied to a fetus. We don't know if it's a person or not. Just like in my example.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
I asked why mothers don't go to jail once they performs an abortion, and you responded because fetuses aren't being treated as persons. So I thought you knew. Either way, what is your argument? The fact that we don't know if a fetus should be considered a person? If you're against abortion, I believe you must give an argument about why the fetus SHOULD be considered a person.

I disagree. I think my hypothetical in my last post shows my stance pretty well. I don't think I have to prove it is a person. It's the people who want to kill it who have to prove it isn't.

🙂 ah tac

Originally posted by inimalist
a child of 5 will, without a doubt, die without parental guardianship. all you are doing is saying the amount of time it takes makes it ok to kill the fetus, which is arbitrary

Originally posted by The MISTER
An adult who receives no human assistance will also likely die. Drop you or me off naked in the middle of a jungle with no other humans and we would almost definitely die, and it would likely take longer than the five year old you mentioned. have one. 😮‍💨

Drop this ****er off naked in that jungle; within a week he'll have a shelter built, fire going, hunting gear and stores of food.

Don't confuse the issue because Westerners have grown soft and dependent of their coffee shops and iPhones.

I recall a story from a few years back of a small child surviving in Austrialian wild for like a month.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I recall a story from a few years back of a small child surviving in Austrialian wild for like a month.

Aborigines aren't really people.

Though black-Wolverine on the left looks like he's ready to **** some shit up.

Medically, they're defined as people outside the uterus. So shuddup.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Medically, they're defined as people outside the uterus. So shuddup.

Outside of the pouch, noob.

Originally posted by inimalist
🙂 ah tac

😎

Originally posted by The MISTER
An adult who receives no human assistance will also likely die. Drop you or me off naked in the middle of a jungle with no other humans and we would almost definitely die, and it would likely take longer than the five year old you mentioned. Does that mean that most adult human cannot sustain themselves? I can't say that it's ok to kill any fetus because I have never and will never be in that position of authority over the going ons in my belly. That's a woman's place if there is any such thing as a woman's place. All I'm responding to is the question of when is it murdering a little person to have an abortion. My own personal bias wants to say that it's always murder but I'm a man who's free from that burden entirely. I'm sure that it's not an easy decision to make for many women that choose to have one. 😮‍💨

Robtard is right. An adult CAN live on it's own away from people if it knows what it's doing. The same cannot be said of a 5 year old.