Abortion

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough, but 'capacity of suffering' falls into yet more tricky territory. Could I kill you, as long as I make it so you don't suffer? Cos I could.

Edit: Read up on Singer, guy's a whacky vegetarian tool. He argues that newborns aren't essentially people/have the rights of people, cos they're ignorant.

Well, I simply stated it, it's more about weighing the preferences of a person (which are to avoid suffering or attain satisfaction). So I would prefer to live, a fetus on the other hand has no capabilities for preference.

Originally posted by TacDavey
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.

So you don't really have an argument against abortion?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
So you don't really have an argument against abortion?

His argument is that it's better to error on the side of life. He's clearly said he doesn't know with 100% certainty if a fetus is equivalent to a human life; this is the reason why he's not willing to kill it. Why you people continue to dance around this, is funny.

No different that not killing a suspected murderer because there's some doubt to whether he's guilty of murder or not.

mobility rights for fetuses, NOW. Free them from the oppression and forced confinement for 9 months that our society turns a blind eye to. As free people, the womb should be a choice!

Originally posted by inimalist
mobility rights for fetuses, NOW. Free them from the oppression and forced confinement for 9 months that our society turns a blind eye to. As free people, the womb should be a choice!

Count me in; I'm 100% behind this.

a fetus is a person too! I mean, prove me wrong

I still feel like, whether you are a person or not, you don't have the right to live in a woman's vagina against her consent...

Originally posted by Robtard
His argument is that it's better to error on the side of life. He's clearly said he doesn't know with 100% certainty if a fetus is equivalent to a human life; this is the reason why he's not willing to kill it. Why you people continue to dance around this, is funny.

No different that not killing a suspected murderer because there's some doubt to whether he's guilty of murder or not.

Oh, I see. But why it's better to error on the side of life? If that's the case, it's a 50% versus a 50% after all. I'm not saying we should error on the side of death, though. I'm actually neutral. And of course he won't kill it, neither any of us I assume, it's a woman's choice. Besides, we'll never understand how they feel anyway, nor I believe we're taking it into account. As such, the rights of an incomplete human being overweights the rights of a woman and her body, as far as some arguments goes. I don't know what to think about that...

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Oh, I see. But why it's better to error on the side of life? If that's the case, it's a 50% versus a 50% after all. I'm not saying we should error on the side of death, though. I'm actually neutral. And of course he won't kill it, neither any of us I assume, it's a woman's choice. Besides, we'll never understand how they feel anyway, nor I believe we're taking it into account. As such, the rights of an incomplete human being overweights the rights of a woman and her body, as far as some arguments goes. I don't know what to think about that...

Why is it better to error on the side of life? Simplest reason: Because death is permanent.

Originally posted by inimalist
in other words, no physical evidence

It still places the fetus in the same circumstance as the bush creature. It's possible it's a person. We don't know. So don't kill it unless you DO know.

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
Oh, I see. But why it's better to error on the side of life? If that's the case, it's a 50% versus a 50% after all. I'm not saying we should error on the side of death, though. I'm actually neutral. And of course he won't kill it, neither any of us I assume, it's a woman's choice. Besides, we'll never understand how they feel anyway, nor I believe we're taking it into account. As such, the rights of an incomplete human being overweights the rights of a woman and her body, as far as some arguments goes. I don't know what to think about that...

Think of it this way.

If pro-life people are wrong, and it turns out the fetus isn't a person the damage is minimal.

If it turns out the pro-choice people are wrong and the fetus IS a person the damage is EXTRAORDINARY.

We have to play it safe in this sense.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Think of it this way.

If pro-life people are wrong, and it turns out the fetus isn't a person the damage is minimal.

If it turns out the pro-choice people are wrong and the fetus IS a person the damage is EXTRAORDINARY.

We have to play it safe in this sense.

Some pages back I said that a fetus will be a child, and you asked when does a fetus becomes a child. To be honest, I don't know, so I'll leave that one up to other people who are more knowledgeable than me in this topic.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It still places the fetus in the same circumstance as the bush creature. It's possible it's a person. We don't know. So don't kill it unless you DO know.

ive never doubted that

the difference between the situations is that in the forest, there is physical evidence to suggest there might be a human in the sights, in the womb, there is no such evidence

Originally posted by TacDavey
First off, the rest of your life is not the same as 9 months of discomfort.

Second, I do not think that a person with a failing organ has the right to another person's organ. As I said, hooking the violinist up to the person was wrong in the first place. But what's done is done, and now we have to deal with the fact that the violinist's life is on the line.

You can't kill someone because they make you uncomfortable. Bottom line.

You did not answer my questions.

How he came to be plugged into you, and the duration for which he must remain plugged into you aside, why should you have to remain plugged into him against your will?

Why should the right to life of the violinist give him the right to control your body?

If your reasoning is that his right to life supersedes your right to control your body, then the logical extension of this is that any person with a failing organ need only plug himself into someone with a healthy organ, and he can never be unplugged—that any person with a failing organ has the right to the use of the healthy organ of another person indefinitely. Explain to me why that is not ludicrous.

You silly Moron, Tac Davey. Answer the ****ing question, there's an obvious flaw in Adam's like-comparison, so point it the **** out.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Think of it this way.

If pro-life people are wrong, and it turns out the fetus isn't a person the damage is minimal.

If it turns out the pro-choice people are wrong and the fetus IS a person the damage is EXTRAORDINARY.

We have to play it safe in this sense.

Then I propose that if there aren't enough abortions in a country each year a Godlike figure will torture everyone in this country for eternity in hell like circumstances, while if there are enough, everyone, including the aborted babies will be happy and unharmed forever.

I'd say if I am right, the damage you, as a pro-lifer are doing, is EXTRAORDINARY, and we have to play it safe and get everyone an abortion.

Which is besides the point that the argument is wrong anyways, since nothing changes at all if we call the fetus a person. It's just an arbitrary word we attach to something, with no inherent meaning, all the facts will still be the same, and they point to abortion being very, very little damage at all. In fact it has close to none, since, whether we call the fetus a person or not, he has absolutely no preference to live or any capacity for feeling pain. To agree to your point, you'd first have to prove that "more humans = good", and we don't know that at all, while factually no harm is done to anyone.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Think of it this way.

If pro-life people are wrong, and it turns out the fetus isn't a person the damage is minimal.

If it turns out the pro-choice people are wrong and the fetus IS a person the damage is EXTRAORDINARY.

We have to play it safe in this sense.

Sounds like religion.

Originally posted by inimalist
ive never doubted that

the difference between the situations is that in the forest, there is physical evidence to suggest there might be a human in the sights, in the womb, there is no such evidence

I don't see how this matters. In the end, we know the fetus is a person as much as we know the thing in the bush is a person.

If you want physical evidence for the fetus as a person you can look at you or me. We know the fetus becomes like us at some point, and we don't know when.

So the fetus is still in the same situation as the creature in the bush. In the realm of "possibly a person". The reasoning behind how it got to that point is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You did not answer my questions.

How he came to be plugged into you, and the duration for which he must remain plugged into you aside, why should you have to remain plugged into him against your will?

Why should the right to life of the violinist give him the right to control your body?

If your reasoning is that his right to life supersedes your right to control your body, then the logical extension of this is that any person with a failing organ need only plug himself into someone with a healthy organ, and he can never be unplugged—that any person with a failing organ has the right to the use of the healthy organ of another person indefinitely. Explain to me why that is not ludicrous.

No, I do not see that extension as logical because I do not accept the act of plugging someone into another person against their will acceptable.

The violinist did not plug himself into the person, it was the music group and THEY should be punished. If the violinist had plugged himself into someone against their will to save himself, then I don't see a problem with unhooking him. But he is innocent in this matter, and cannot be punished for something he did not do.

Originally posted by Robtard
You silly Moron, Tac Davey. Answer the ****ing question, there's an obvious flaw in Adam's like-comparison, so point it the **** out.

🤨 Well, excuse me Mr. backseat debater. If you have some great counter to his point, by all means feel free to chime in.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then I propose that if there aren't enough abortions in a country each year a Godlike figure will torture everyone in this country for eternity in hell like circumstances, while if there are enough, everyone, including the aborted babies will be happy and unharmed forever.

I'd say if I am right, the damage you, as a pro-lifer are doing, is EXTRAORDINARY, and we have to play it safe and get everyone an abortion.

🤨 This... made no sense to me.

If there was any reason to see the possibility of a god like being torturing people over an abortion quota as real, then you might have something there. There isn't, of course.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which is besides the point that the argument is wrong anyways, since nothing changes at all if we call the fetus a person. It's just an arbitrary word we attach to something, with no inherent meaning, all the facts will still be the same, and they point to abortion being very, very little damage at all. In fact it has close to none, since, whether we call the fetus a person or not, he has absolutely no preference to live or any capacity for feeling pain. To agree to your point, you'd first have to prove that "more humans = good", and we don't know that at all, while factually no harm is done to anyone.

The word "person" is something we made up to give a name to something which is very real. Just like the word "tree" is something we made up. A tree doesn't change based on what we call it. A Person is something that deserves rights. You can switch the name around all you want, but the definition stays the same.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The word "person" is something we made up to give a name to something which is very real. Just like the word "tree" is something we made up. A tree doesn't change based on what we call it. A Person is something that deserves rights. You can switch the name around all you want, but the definition stays the same.

That's not quite correct though, a person doesn't intrinsically have any rights, that's not its definition.

Regardless, the main point was that the harm done by killing a fetus is not extraordinary, it's very minimal, really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not quite correct though, a person doesn't intrinsically have any rights, that's not its definition.

Actually that is exactly what a person is. Something that has rights.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Regardless, the main point was that the harm done by killing a fetus is not extraordinary, it's very minimal, really.

You can't know that unless you know it isn't a person. If it is a person, the damage is pretty significant. At least I would consider the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children pretty significant.