The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[ElendilPeredhil]

lol. cheap shot. I'm talking modern times, today, not when that particular musician was born.

 

[bshoc]

I'm conflicted. I'm pro choice. but i think abortions aren't a procedure one should enter into willy nilly.

Well thats more than what the case is right now, "willy nilly," yet I don't sense any even minor criticism in your opinions, meaning the two lines I just read aren't really your opinion, they're bull.

I don't think that a human being is a human being upon the moment the sperm meets the egg so essentially an early abortion, IMO, is like cutting your fingernails or your hair- they're just cells.

You are destroying a possibility, not a life.

Is hair or fingernail potential life? .. Oh come on, how stupid is that? Its been mentioned over and over and over and yet you still cant come to terms reality. When you kill sperm or egg thats when you kill potential life, why? Because genetically they're still you, when you kill a perpetually growing organism who's genetic properties do not correspond to yours, you're not killing a part of you, but someone else. A human being at one month is still a human being at nine months.

Why sugar coat your position, why don't you just admit the political position you share, which is:

"I believe that other people should have to die for the stupidity of their mothers."

using the two exuses

"Out of sight, out of mind"

and

"Personal responsibility is sooo unprogressive"

I don't think rape victims shoudl be forced to keep a visible reminder of their ordeal and raise it.

Adoption ...

Regaring kids with lifelong disabilites...yeah, it varies from case to case, but basically, what kind of life is it? What kind of a life will a severly mentally disabled, blind and deaf child have? You have to weigh that with the parents, who are saddled for the rest of their lives with a child who would need constant, 24 hour care. When they are 80 and their child is 50 physically, he/she would still be 1 or 2 mentally, still need the same amount of care.

More importantly, what kind of morons concieve children with those kinds of disabilities.

I believe both the the causes and consequences of conception and pregnancy lie with the parents, not with the child which is innocent, children dont concieve themselves.

On the other hand, maybe the parents give up their kid, maybe they can't handle the responsibility, in whihc case the state pays an enormous amount of money to keep the child in care for the 80+ years it lives. Abortion in this case, not only makes sense morally ( although I realise some people would disagree here) but also economically- maybe appeal to you bshoc?

As Captain Gh3y sarcastically and correctly pointed out, for whatever reason people such as yourself love to site these one in a million cases where the real problems lie with the fact that 99% of abortions are performed on healthy children where no threat to the mother exists. Which makes sense since you absolutely haven't got a shred of logical argument when these cases are concerned.

I believe that parents should have to pay for their own children, the same way divorced fathers (and mothers) have to pay child support after the breakup, and that human life at whatever stage of genetic development is worth equally the same - if there are finanacial difficulties then the state should make up whatever funds are needed, which it already does to quite a large extent. And believe me when I tell you, this issue hasnt got a scrape of economic value, it simply should not be an economic issue nor should these issues ever be, when ones concern is human life itself. I'm not on the economic right, I probably disagree as much with them as I do with you, probably more, nor do I believe that you are genuinly advocating such a position, any sort of personal or economic responsibility is not in the vocab of people such as yourself, now maybe if WAF put forward such an argument, but a lefty trying to preach economic rationalism? dont make me LOL Its just a cover for an illogical argument.

Isn't that a little harsh? Why do you care so much for possible life i.e a foetus, and not any for actual life- those women.

I dont care if people kill sperm or eggs, a fetus isnt potential life becuase guess what, ITS ALREADY ALIVE, if it wasnt ie. it was dead, then it wouldn't GROW, a foetus is as much a life as the mother, I dont believe in favoritism. As for mothers who abort healthy babies who were no threat to them and came about due to the mothers actions (ie. 99% of cases), the same reason I dont care about the lives of murderers.

 

[kami]

Is hair or fingernail potential life? .. Oh come on, how stupid is that? Its been mentioned over and over and over and yet you still cant come to terms reality. When you kill sperm or egg thats when you kill potential life, why? Because genetically they're still you, when you kill a perpetually growing organism who's genetic properties do not correspond to yours, you're not killing a part of you, but someone else. A human being at one month is still a human being at nine months.

Growth is not a valid reason for life - a cancer grows and uses up the resources of the person it inhabits. Cancers are genetically different as well, as the arise from a form of mutation. Despite all this however there is no argument to award cancers the right to life in a person's body.

A foetus is also not exactly what is born at nine months, a foetus is attempting to develop what makes it both independent and conscious whereas a born child already has all of the biological factors neccesary for consciousness and independence if properly supported. At early stages the embryo of the human is hardly different from that of most mammals (which if I recall you have no problem in killing) either. This leaves only the human DNA to make the foetus different, which does equate it to hair or fingernails.

While there are right to life arguments, you haven't chosen a very effective one.

Adoption ...

Yes, which involves the woman's body being additionally violated by a foreign entity which induces a variety of difficulties on the woman's life as well. Why should anyone have the right to force the woman to cope with that?

More importantly, what kind of morons concieve children with those kinds of disabilities.

I believe both the the causes and consequences of conception and pregnancy lie with the parents, not with the child which is innocent, children dont concieve themselves.

You do realise that a parents intelligence has little to do with concieving a healthy child, don't you?

One could also argue that if cause and consequence lie with the parents then so does choice.

As Captain Gh3y sarcastically and correctly pointed out, for whatever reason people such as yourself love to site these one in a million cases where the real problems lie with the fact that 99% of abortions are performed on healthy children where no threat to the mother exists. Which makes sense since you absolutely haven't got a shred of logical argument when these cases are concerned.

You use the 99% statistic in a lot of your arguments bshoc, however that doesn't hold water with the abortion case as there are no reliable statistics for Australia. As it stands, rights and priorities must still be established in these cases you deem unimportant if only so that its not left up to the doctor to impose their morals upon the situation.

Thats also not exactly what Captain Gh3y was pointing out - Beethoven, regardless of his gifts was not exactly healthy. I also don't understand why you'd be using that argument directly against Elendhil as I don't recall her mentioning birth complications?

I dont care if people kill sperm or eggs, a fetus isnt potential life becuase guess what, ITS ALREADY ALIVE, if it wasnt ie. it was dead, then it wouldn't GROW, a foetus is as much a life as the mother, I dont believe in favoritism. As for mothers who abort healthy babies who were no threat to them and came about due to the mothers actions (ie. 99% of cases), the same reason I dont care about the lives of murderers.

How do you determine life? And I'm not asking for you to cite some religious or medical proffessional that says foetuses are alive, but rather what constitutes life to you?

Also, cancers and crystals grow yet they are not alive - growth is not a reason to award something rights.

Due to my religious upbringing(I'm not that religious though), even if the child is concieved due to rape, it should still be born as the circumstances of his/her conception was not their fault. I really hate that part, I think it's very unfair. imagine bringing up a kid u never wanted..

I can see where you're coming from but I'm just of the mindset that its ok for people to be pro-life but its not really ok to make that public policy. If for example someone in another state, that you did not know, was gang raped and then fell pregnant, do you really think she should be forced to keep the child because of the mindset you hold? Which is kinda where I'm at - that it doesn't matter whether I approve of the abortion or not because I (and the state) don't have the right to impose those views on another's body.

 

[KFunk]

A question for bhsoc:

What is your argument (justifications etc) for giving humans a right to life?

 

[bshoc]

Growth is not a valid reason for life - a cancer grows and uses up the resources of the person it inhabits. Cancers are genetically different as well, as the arise from a form of mutation. Despite all this however there is no argument to award cancers the right to life in a person's body.

Still as isanely stupid as what elendwhatever said. Firstly you're comparing children to cancers, that means you are a moron. That little bit of truth aside have you ever even bothered to pick up any text relating to biology or genetics? Since when do cancers grow brains, organs, hearts and into seperate human beings? Please do enlighten.

And secondly cancers are still genetically part of a person the same way hair or nails are, as in the genetic code of a cancer is still wholly that of the person who has the cancer, its simply cells with abnormal growth properties.

A foetus is also not exactly what is born at nine months,

Its both the same genetically and in the fact that it is growing, crush a plant when its a sapling or a tree, you're still killing the same plant. A child at 1 year old isn't the same as a person at 15 either.

a foetus is attempting to develop what makes it both independent and conscious whereas a born child already has all of the biological factors neccesary for consciousness and independence if properly supported.

No it doesent, a child needs its parents, especially mother for much of its childhood, children dont even begin to get a real sense of perception outside of instinctual until after a few months.

At early stages the embryo of the human is hardly different from that of most mammals (which if I recall you have no problem in killing) either. This leaves only the human DNA to make the foetus different, which does equate it to hair or fingernails.

Fingernails and hair develop into seperate human beings and magically change genetic composition?

While there are right to life arguments, you haven't chosen a very effective one.

If effective is measured by the level of response given, its been quite effective since you've presented a wad of bs hardly worthy of reply.

Yes, which involves the woman's body being additionally violated by a foreign entity which induces a variety of difficulties on the woman's life as well. Why should anyone have the right to force the woman to cope with that?

"Violated" due to the womans own actions, children should not suffer for the actions of their parents. Forcing women to carry children to term is no different from forcing parents to provide for their children. Incase you haven't noticed, society does set responsibilities for its memebers to follow, we dont live in anarchy.

You do realise that a parents intelligence has little to do with concieving a healthy child, don't you?

Yes I'm not an idiot, but if genetic testing or first time experience reveal that the offspring of two parents will be likely genetically defective, and the parents do not wish to concieve genetically defective children, thats stupidity.

One could also argue that if cause and consequence lie with the parents then so does choice.

On what grounds? A murderer as a source of cause or consequence does not get a choice, neither do taxpayers etc.

You use the 99% statistic in a lot of your arguments bshoc, however that doesn't hold water with the abortion case as there are no reliable statistics for Australia.

They're as accurate as you'll get, seeing as how they're derived from the SA statistics which track every abortion.

As it stands, rights and priorities must still be established in these cases you deem unimportant if only so that its not left up to the doctor to impose their morals upon the situation.

It is not for doctors to impose anything, their profession is to treat, not kill ie. "do no harm" Abortionists are not doctors, they are legalized murderers. Abortion pills are not medicine, they are human pesticide.

How do you determine life? And I'm not asking for you to cite some religious or medical proffessional that says foetuses are alive, but rather what constitutes life to you?

It doesen't matter what constitutes life to me, it matters what constitutes life in reality, that being a genetically unique being engaged in cell devision, a human life would entail unique human genetic properties.

Also, cancers and crystals grow yet they are not alive - growth is not a reason to award something rights.

Cancers and crystals are not beings or separate.

I can see where you're coming from but I'm just of the mindset that its ok for people to be pro-life but its not really ok to make that public policy.

Whats wrong with wanting to protect human beings? By the way it is public policy if you read NSW law, its just not enforced, I'm not advocating great changes to current laws, only that the ones on the books be properly enforced.

If for example someone in another state, that you did not know, was gang raped and then fell pregnant, do you really think she should be forced to keep the child because of the mindset you hold?

Yes she should given the sheer demand for adopted children, 9 months of minimal discomfort and a few hours of pain is an irrelevant price to pay for a life and the country.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Well thats more than what the case is right now, "willy nilly," yet I don't sense any even minor criticism in your opinions, meaning the two lines I just read aren't really your opinion, they're bull.

wtf?

Is hair or fingernail potential life? .. Oh come on, how stupid is that? Its been mentioned over and over and over and yet you still cant come to terms reality. When you kill sperm or egg thats when you kill potential life, why? Because genetically they're still you, when you kill a perpetually growing organism who's genetic properties do not correspond to yours, you're not killing a part of you, but someone else. A human being at one month is still a human being at nine months.

I wasn't implying that fingernails or hair are potential life, just saying that the cluster of cells making a one month old embryo are not human life, IMO. You are destorying life, in the same way that hair cells are life, but its not human life. It's not a person, it's a parasite inside a woman's womb.

Why sugar coat your position, why don't you just admit the political position you share, which is:

"I believe that other people should have to die for the stupidity of their mothers."

using the two exuses

"Out of sight, out of mind"

and

"Personal responsibility is sooo unprogressive"

I don't define a 6 week embryo/feotus/whatever you want to call it as a person, so no, I don't subscribe to "I believe that other people should have to die for the stupidity of their mothers."
Yes, the 'mother' is stupid to get pregnant in the first place, but it isn't a person they are killing.

More importantly, what kind of morons concieve children with those kinds of disabilities.

I believe both the the causes and consequences of conception and pregnancy lie with the parents, not with the child which is innocent, children dont concieve themselves.

Lol. Funny joke bshoc. Surely not even you are stupid enough to belive that?
Do you support gentetic testing before pregnancy, to make sure father and mother produce perfect little children?

I believe that parents should have to pay for their own children, the same way divorced fathers (and mothers) have to pay child support after the breakup, and that human life at whatever stage of genetic development is worth equally the same - if there are finanacial difficulties then the state should make up whatever funds are needed, which it already does to quite a large extent. And believe me when I tell you, this issue hasnt got a scrape of economic value, .....
.....
I'm not on the economic right, I probably disagree as much with them as I do with you, probably more, nor do I believe that you are genuinly advocating such a position, any sort of personal or economic responsibility is not in the vocab of people such as yourself, now maybe if WAF put forward such an argument, but a lefty trying to preach economic rationalism? dont make me LOL Its just a cover for an illogical argument.

So your problem with this argument is that you don't believe I mean it- not that the argument itself is invalid?

"Nyah Nyah stupid lefty" is not a real rebuttal.

 

[kami]

Still as isanely stupid as what elendwhatever said. Firstly you're comparing children to cancers, that means you are a moron. That little bit of truth aside have you ever even bothered to pick up any text relating to biology or genetics? Since when do cancers grow brains, organs, hearts and into seperate human beings? Please do enlighten.

And secondly cancers are still genetically part of a person the same way hair or nails are, as in the genetic code of a cancer is still wholly that of the person who has the cancer, its simply cells with abnormal growth properties.

Please cease the baseless insults, they add nothing. As does all of the ad hominem.

Cancer cells are also not wholly identical - they arise from a DNA mutation that disrupts cell division and causes undifferentiated cells to form at an accelerated rate. The key term being mutation. Which makes it different, if only slightly, from every other cell in the body.

I also never said that cancers have internal organs and became humans, nor am I exactly sure why you would garner that from my post. However the majority of your argument was based on:

1. That a foetus grows and;
2. that it possesses genetic properties differing from a generic cell of the mothers.

Cancers possess these properties, as do animals yet we have no established right system in place. This suggests either that the above argument is not sufficient reason to establish these rights or that those reasons are sufficient in which case should be applied wholesale.

No it doesent, a child needs its parents, especially mother for much of its childhood, children dont even begin to get a real sense of perception outside of instinctual until after a few months.

How many early foetuses have brains? Lungs? Voices? Eyes? Bowels?

Babies have already formed every organ they need to function, they simply need to be supported while they learn to use them. Foetuses do not as of yet have these physiological features

If effective is measured by the level of response given, its been quite effective since you've presented a wad of bs hardly worthy of reply.

It is ineffective because in an attempt to dismiss an argument based on humanity defined by genetics you then implicitly dismiss humans in the physiological or conscious definitions. Which simply brings it back to a DNA code again.

"Violated" due to the womans own actions, children should not suffer for the actions of their parents. Forcing women to carry children to term is no different from forcing parents to provide for their children. Incase you haven't noticed, society does set responsibilities for its memebers to follow, we dont live in anarchy.

I'm sure you remember this was in response to your comment on rape, so I honestly cannot see how you can apply an argument that it was 'due to the woman's own actions'. Unless you believe women are responsible for being raped as well.

Yes I'm not an idiot, but if genetic testing or first time experience reveal that the offspring of two parents will be likely genetically defective, and the parents do not wish to concieve genetically defective children, thats stupidity.

Not all parents-to be have inherent genetic issues or previous experiences to tell them the next child will have similar problems. Often it just happens.

On what grounds? A murderer as a source of cause or consequence does not get a choice, neither do taxpayers etc.

That depends on if you believe the foetus qualifies completely as human - which is a point of moral and ethical debate that has not been cleanly resolved - so its not completely valid to exclusively use a murderer analogy.

They're as accurate as you'll get, seeing as how they're derived from the SA statistics which track every abortion.

I think we can both agree though, that we can't get anything all encompassing on this matter - its still limited.

It is not for doctors to impose anything, their profession is to treat, not kill ie. "do no harm" Abortionists are not doctors, they are legalized murderers. Abortion pills are not medicine, they are human pesticide.

You dismissed the need to address what happens when there are complications that present a threat to the mother. In such a situation who decides if it comes to someone living or dying? This can become clouded if the pro-life stance is enforced.

Cancers and crystals are not beings or separate.

Irrelevant. Your premise was that a living thing was a growing thing and thus entitled to life. Cancers and crystals grow yet are not alive. This isolates the idea that growth does not define the foetuses status as either alive or dead.

Whats wrong with wanting to protect human beings? By the way it is public policy if you read NSW law, its just not enforced, I'm not advocating great changes to current laws, only that the ones on the books be properly enforced.

Because neither the citizenry nor the legislature could, at this juncture, give you a conclusive definition of when/if a foetus is alive. This is furthered by the fact that any conclusive definition results in one of two scenarios:

1. Those who believe in pro-choice permit child murder or;
2. those who believe in pro-life approve of the cruelest kind of rape.

There should not be a conclusive enforcement of this kind of definition when there
is such division with the community on religious, scientific, political and domestic levels on what this definition is.

Yes she should given the sheer demand for adopted children, 9 months of minimal discomfort and a few hours of pain is an irrelevant price to pay for a life and the country.

The discomfort and pain isn't really that minimal bshoc and its hardly irrelevant, especially considering no one has the right to do that to another person without their permission.

I don't know. I really see abortion as murder. I'd rather that the child be adopted out to a nice home with loving people who want kids.But we live in a state of choice and shouldn't be interfered with by public policy. That, I'll adhere to. I'm wanting to be pro choice too..bloody hell..gotta make up my mind..

You could be both - not imposing a belief on another doesn't lesson your personal belief nor does it lessen how much you value it.

 

[bshoc]

Man was that even an attempt at a reply? I'll try and adress the ones with actual substance.

I wasn't implying that fingernails or hair are potential life, just saying that the cluster of cells making a one month old embryo are not human life, IMO. You are destorying life, in the same way that hair cells are life, but its not human life. It's not a person, it's a parasite inside a woman's womb.

Firstly yes you were, secondly all life is a cluster of cells, in what way is the one month embryo not human life? Its genetically human, its alive and its a separate being, where is your scientific justification for degradating it to "non human"? Ofcourse its a person. Also, I do not see human life as a parasitic.

I don't define a 6 week embryo/feotus/whatever you want to call it as a person, so no, I don't subscribe to "I believe that other people should have to die for the stupidity of their mothers."
Yes, the 'mother' is stupid to get pregnant in the first place, but it isn't a person they are killing.

Yet you have not stated any grounds for your beliefs, only that you believe them. That 6 week limit, what about 6 weeks and one day, two days? Its so stupidly arbitrary and doesen't make any real sense. Just say that children should be killed for social convenience, at least then you'll be truthful and have a realistic position from which to adress this issue.

Lol. Funny joke bshoc. Surely not even you are stupid enough to belive that?
Do you support gentetic testing before pregnancy, to make sure father and mother produce perfect little children?

Sure, especially with genetics improving at the rate that they are.

So your problem with this argument is that you don't believe I mean it- not that the argument itself is invalid?

More that you are trying to sugar coat to make your argument look less cruel and self-centered, not that I accept a scrap of your real argument either - people who make mistakes should be the one taking responsibility for those mistakes, and killing should never be the way to absolve those mistakes.

"Nyah Nyah stupid lefty" is not a real rebuttal.

Which is funny since yours isnt an argument.

 

[bshoc]

Cancer cells are also not wholly identical - they arise from a DNA mutation that disrupts cell division and causes undifferentiated cells to form at an accelerated rate. The key term being mutation. Which makes it different, if only slightly, from every other cell in the body.

So what, bone cells are different from blood cells, brain cells are different from cancer cells, they're still part of the same person. Moot.

I also never said that cancers have internal organs and became humans, nor am I exactly sure why you would garner that from my post. However the majority of your argument was based on:

1. That a foetus grows and;
2. that it possesses genetic properties differing from a generic cell of the mothers.

1. 
   
   3. Human genetic properties that are the genetic propoerty of a person seperate from the mother
   
   and your point ..
   
   

   Cancers possess these properties, as do animals yet we have no established right system in place. This suggests either that the above argument is not sufficient reason to establish these rights or that those reasons are sufficient in which case should be applied wholesale.

   Cancers and animals have unique human genetic properties?
   
   

   How many early foetuses have brains? Lungs? Voices? Eyes? Bowels?

   For the first one 3 weeks and onwards, since people can live without those other ones.
   
   

   It is ineffective because in an attempt to dismiss an argument based on humanity defined by genetics you then implicitly dismiss humans in the physiological or conscious definitions. Which simply brings it back to a DNA code again.

   Because those two explanations are chronically flawed and not backed by any sort of hard science, they are also easy to dismiss via examples, such as coma patients etc. They're also arbitrary with no justification, how conscious is conscious? Too flawed, too incomplete.
   
   

   I'm sure you remember this was in response to your comment on rape, so I honestly cannot see how you can apply an argument that it was 'due to the woman's own actions'. Unless you believe women are responsible for being raped as well.

   Well I sure don't think it was the concieved childs fault.
   
   

   That depends on if you believe the foetus qualifies completely as human - which is a point of moral and ethical debate that has not been cleanly resolved - so its not completely valid to exclusively use a murderer analogy.

   It qualifies as human under the only definition that can withstand all scrutiny, thats usually good enough for the law.
   
   

   I think we can both agree though, that we can't get anything all encompassing on this matter - its still limited.

   Why? If you track every abortion that is filed, you can be accurate 100% of the time.
   
   

   You dismissed the need to address what happens when there are complications that present a threat to the mother. In such a situation who decides if it comes to someone living or dying? This can become clouded if the pro-life stance is enforced.

   Firstly lets recognize that this is a one in a million thing, almost hypothetical. That said - not really, if the mother dies so does the child, therefore it makes sense to save the mother, perhaps the only case where abortion is justified since the child can be said to be already dead.
   
   

   Irrelevant. Your premise was that a living thing was a growing thing and thus entitled to life. Cancers and crystals grow yet are not alive. This isolates the idea that growth does not define the foetuses status as either alive or dead.

   Go back and read what I said, my premise is that it is growing, human, alive and a seperate being, it makes perfect sense.
   
   

   There should not be a conclusive enforcement of this kind of definition when there
   is such division with the community on religious, scientific, political and domestic levels on what this definition is.

   Well the correct definition is quite clear, disagreement is no reason not to enforce laws, that and the people who support abortion would mostly not be described as preferable members of society.
   
   

   The discomfort and pain isn't really that minimal bshoc and its hardly irrelevant, especially considering no one has the right to do that to another person without their permission.

   Thats what laws are, telling people what to do, its quite minimal considering that there were some laws that drafted people and put them to die on battlefield.
   
   

   You could be both - not imposing a belief on another doesn't lesson your personal belief nor does it lessen how much you value it.

   Beliefs and ideas only have value if they are acted upon and applied, or as much as possible, until then they are worthless.

 

[kami]

So what, bone cells are different from blood cells, brain cells are different from cancer cells, they're still part of the same person. Moot.

Blood cells and bone cells are only different physiologically, not genetically. Same cannot be said of cancer cells and all other cells produced through miotic division.

3. Human genetic properties that are the genetic propoerty of a person seperate from the mother

and your point ..

2. that it possesses genetic properties differing from a generic cell of the mothers.

Your addendum was unnecessary as that was already covered (the person aspect is irrevelant since you dismiss any definition but genetics). It isn't hard for anyone to then see why a comparison with a cancer is relevant - especially given your dismissal of physiological and conscious aspects.

Cancers and animals have unique human genetic properties?

A cancer possesses a somewhat different genetic structures (which are human) thanks to mutation, as you've already established that genes are all that matters then this gives them the same entitlements as anything else with different genetic properties inhabiting one's body. Yet they can be killed.

Every individual animal (including humans) has a unique set of genetic properties, yet we take the lives of already born, sentient, growing and independent/separate and genetically unique creatures. Yet they can be killed.

This rules out the following as reasons for life:

• different genetic properties.
• human DNA.
• the ability to grow and develop.
• the potential for sentience and thus may feel pain.
• separate and independent existence or the possibility thereof.
• being alive.
• possessing internal organs.

Even the combination of a number of these seem insufficient to entitle something to exist. So what else are you trying to argue entitles a foetus to life? Because there are stages when a foetus doesn't possess all of these either.

For the first one 3 weeks and onwards, since people can live without those other ones.

Uh, you can't live without lungs. Its lack of a brain in the first 3 weeks(a heart too) is also a pretty significant difference. So my original point stands.

Well I sure don't think it was the concieved childs fault.

Just because you cannot asign blame to a foetus does not mean you should violate a woman.

Why? If you track every abortion that is filed, you can be accurate 100% of the time.

Because we're not tracking every abortion in this country? Nor are we detailing all of the reasons those abortions came about. Also, even if we were, then there would still need to be extensive reports investigating how location, income, age, health, culture of origin etc. affect this data.

Firstly lets recognize that this is a one in a million thing, almost hypothetical. That said - not really, if the mother dies so does the child, therefore it makes sense to save the mother, perhaps the only case where abortion is justified since the child can be said to be already dead.

Not really one in a million but ok, lets pretend it is - if the mother is so ill that she is at risk of death if there is a C-section is performed but the baby will die if they don't perform it. This scenario allows pretty much either to survive if a particular action is taken so if the hard pro-life stance is adopted then it does cloud the issue.

Go back and read what I said, my premise is that it is growing, human, alive and a seperate being, it makes perfect sense.

Um:

a fetus isnt potential life becuase guess what, ITS ALREADY ALIVE, if it wasnt ie. it was dead, then it wouldn't GROW

That is your point where you attempt to prove it is alive by its ability to grow - my example still shows that growth isn't part of this debate, regardless of your dismissal of crystals and cancers as ( quite obviously) not beings.

Well the correct definition is quite clear, disagreement is no reason not to enforce laws, that and the people who support abortion would mostly not be described as preferable members of society.

The correct definition is not clear otherwise this wouldn't be such a widespread debate.

Thats what laws are, telling people what to do, its quite minimal considering that there were some laws that drafted people and put them to die on battlefield.

Lucky those laws were debunked over 30 years ago then.

Beliefs and ideas only have value if they are acted upon and applied, or as much as possible, until then they are worthless.

And you can act on and apply them to yourself.

 

[bshoc]

Blood cells and bone cells are only different physiologically, not genetically. Same cannot be said of cancer cells and all other cells produced through miotic division.

You mean "meiotic" right, and thats still irrelevant and has nothing to do with child development, as I have pointed out cancers are not beings.

2. that it possesses genetic properties differing from a generic cell of the mothers.

Your addendum was unnecessary as that was already covered (the person aspect is irrevelant since you dismiss any definition but genetics). It isn't hard for anyone to then see why a comparison with a cancer is relevant - especially given your dismissal of physiological and conscious aspects.

Enlighten me how a genetic disorder of uncontrolled cell growth local to one human organism is in any way relevant to a developing human being in aggregate, cancers dont grow into people or into anything for that matter.

A cancer possesses a somewhat different genetic structures (which are human) thanks to mutation, as you've already established that genes are all that matters then this gives them the same entitlements as anything else with different genetic properties inhabiting one's body. Yet they can be killed.

Your cancer argument doesent even begin to adress personhood and fetal development, if you seriously cant tell the difference between

http://www.nswrtl.org.au/alm/1100alm/foetus.jpg

and

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/skin-cancer/skin2a.gif

please seek help, becuase your stupidity isnt getting you anywhere.

Every individual animal (including humans) has a unique set of genetic properties, yet we take the lives of already born, sentient, growing and independent/separate and genetically unique creatures. Yet they can be killed.

This rules out the following as reasons for life:

• different genetic properties.
• human DNA.
• the ability to grow and develop.
• the potential for sentience and thus may feel pain.
• separate and independent existence or the possibility thereof.
• being alive.
• possessing internal organs
• Even the combination of a number of these seem insufficient to entitle something to exist. So what else are you trying to argue entitles a foetus to life? Because there are stages when a foetus doesn't possess all of these either.

... another stupid and irrelevant argument, ofcourse this has to do with humans and it doesen't rule out anything, animals are not on the same level of existance as humans, otherwise we would treat animals differently. Although I'm pretty sure anaimals are aborted far less than humans.

Uh, you can't live without lungs. Its lack of a brain in the first 3 weeks(a heart too) is also a pretty significant difference. So my original point stands.

You can live without lungs via medical machinery and/or pre-oxygenated blood, but yeah if you want to follow that specific line of though you should be arguing that abortion should be ok in the first two weeks, its not facical like your cancer or cockroach argument.

Just because you cannot asign blame to a foetus does not mean you should violate a woman.

Doesen't mean you should violate the child either, like I said, if you want to execute anyone for rape, execute the rapist.

Because we're not tracking every abortion in this country? Nor are we detailing all of the reasons those abortions came about. Also, even if we were, then there would still need to be extensive reports investigating how location, income, age, health, culture of origin etc. affect this data.

The data used is more than acceptably accurate, to the point that it is used by international orgs.

Not really one in a million but ok, lets pretend it is - if the mother is so ill that she is at risk of death if there is a C-section is performed but the baby will die if they don't perform it. This scenario allows pretty much either to survive if a particular action is taken so if the hard pro-life stance is adopted then it does cloud the issue.

C-sections are not life threatening, heck Cesar turned out fine and that was a few thousand years ago.

That is your point where you attempt to prove it is alive by its ability to grow - my example still shows that growth isn't part of this debate, regardless of your dismissal of crystals and cancers as ( quite obviously) not beings.

The ability to grow ... INTO A HUMAN BEING

The correct definition is not clear otherwise this wouldn't be such a widespread debate.

Its as clear as day, some people however have a misplaced intrest in opposing facts, it doesent relfect debate, rather the twisted minds of people who support such horrid practice.

Lucky those laws were debunked over 30 years ago then.

Laws come and go, my point is you whine about violation etc. and yet you don't see that in the end thats what every law is, who is the government to tell you not to murder? or to sell drugs? or for that matter not to abort children or permit gay unions? You're demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of what government actually is.

And you can act on and apply them to yourself.

If your opinions and ideas involve society, they must be applied to society, via government, to have relevance.

 

[KFunk]

... another stupid and irrelevant argument, ofcourse this has to do with humans and it doesen't rule out anything, animals are not on the same level of existance as humans, otherwise we would treat animals differently. Although I'm pretty sure anaimals are aborted far less than humans.

Assertion without justification. why don't you think animals should have the right to life? ... or, a couple more important questions (which I hope you answer):

(1) What kind(s) of 'beings' do you think should have the right to life? (i.e. define beings: humans? animals? cells? cells with the potential to become human?)

(2) Why should these beings have a right to life? (justification, etc.)

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Judging by your performance in the thread about gay marriage, I have found the argument to shut bshoc up.

You are in the minority.
The government allows abortions, therefore most of Australia is fine with abortions, therefore you are wrong.

 

[bshoc]

Judging by your performance in the thread about gay marriage, I have found the argument to shut bshoc up.

You are in the minority.
The government allows abortions, therefore most of Australia is fine with abortions, therefore you are wrong.

Actually abortion is illigal with the exception of maternal life, fetal defects and/or health*

*most abortions in NSW are done through this loophole, whereby the abotion doctor classifies anything he or she can as "health reason," there is a simple solution to this, get the AMA and other NSW health orgs out of abortion law, more importantly throw out faggots like "justice" Kirby from the NSW legal system, send murderers like that Sood hag to jail for the rest of their lives and halt all state funding of abortions.

 

[bshoc]

Assertion without justification. why don't you think animals should have the right to life? ... or, a couple more important questions (which I hope you answer):

(1) What kind(s) of 'beings' do you think should have the right to life? (i.e. define beings: humans? animals? cells? cells with the potential to become human?)

(2) Why should these beings have a right to life? (justification, etc.)

Cant you make the distinctions yourself? Who would you save from a burning house, an adopted son or your cat, or do they have "equal status" in your little warpworld?

 

[KFunk]

The point is that people have different ways of defining 'beings' and why they have a right to life. Their method of justification has huge implications for the application of such a right. Hence my method is unimportant given my aim: i.e. to understand your conception of the right to life. If you're not willing to step up to the plate and provide an argument for the time being, then that's ok. I'm heading away for a few days anyway, so I'll ask you again when I get back.

(p.s. Yes, I can make the distinctions myself. If you would like I can try my best to do so when I get back. As to the child and the cat, yes I would save the child first but not because I don't afford the cat a right to life. I think the cat also has a right to life but that various factors in that situation, including the different strengths of their respective rights to life gives priority to the child).

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Actually abortion is illigal with the exception of maternal life, fetal defects and/or health*

*most abortions in NSW are done through this loophole, whereby the abotion doctor classifies anything he or she can as "health reason," there is a simple solution to this, get the AMA and other NSW health orgs out of abortion law, more importantly throw out faggots like "justice" Kirby from the NSW legal system, send murderers like that Sood hag to jail for the rest of their lives and halt all state funding of abortions.

But the state doesn't want that or it would have already happened. :grin:

You, like gay marriage advocates, are simply the vocal minority trying to tell us what to do.

 

[bshoc]

Exphate your point? What does the crimes act of 1900 which prohibits abortion have to do with the current situation?

 

[bshoc]

But the state doesn't want that or it would have already happened. :grin:

You, like gay marriage advocates, are simply the vocal minority trying to tell us what to do.

Its clear what the state wants becuase of what is law, the current abortion situation is due to undue influence by a destructive minority, the same one that occasionally slips things like "gay marriage" into the system.

 

[katie_tully]

I'm thinking some of your mothers should have taken advantage of their womanly right to abort unwanted pregnancies.

Alas, if only abortion could be retrospective.