The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[katie_tully]

Why differentiate dependancy? Dependancy is dependancy. Complexity is the refuge of the insecure.

Uh, because quite clearly the dependency of an unborn foetus is quite clearly different from the dependency of a child? If the mother is harmed or dies during pregnancy, in most cases so does the foetus; unless taken out shortly before or shortly after death - depending on the age of the foetus will depend on its ability to survive, it's rare for anything under 24 weeks to survive outside the womb.

When a mother of a toddler dies there is somebody else to feed, clothe and look after the child, therefore the dependency on the welfare of the mother is a different 'dependency'

A voting citizen, just like you. That said the itself decision should be left to medical professionals, as a responsible society it should be our (the governments) responsbility to provide stringent boundaries and guidelines for these procedures to be performed, and most importantly, to enforce them.

And the bill has none of these? And you've read the bill?

 

[bshoc]

There's always problems with defining things, maybe one day we'll use different words to explain the various stages of development, that doesn't change that the stages of development (as we described them) do occur.

Such classifications are really just there to make it easier.

"What is actually happening" is a consistant process, any system you or I created would be really no less valid.

 

[bshoc]

Oversimplification is the result of a complete and utter lack of understanding.

Its not oversimplification, its the right amount of simplicity and complexity, something like human development must be viewed as a perpetual event, not as a one second its ok to kill but now this second later its human and its life is worth too much, thats actually is the most dangerous oversimplification of all.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

As long as you can actually describe what is going on at any given time, it's fine. Common classifications really make it much easier though and there's no need to dismiss them.

 

[katie_tully]

No, it's giving something unborn and unformed more rights than that of an existing person.

 

[bshoc]

No, it's giving something unborn and unformed more rights than that of an existing person.

Its giving them only one, a conditional right to life.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

Its not oversimplification, its the right amount of simplicity and complexity, something like human development must be viewed as a perpetual event, not as a one second its ok to kill but now this second later its human and its life is worth too much, thats actually is the most dangerous oversimplification of all.

Then you should probably stop masturbating, because you ejaculate a million little humans each time.

 

[bshoc]

Then you should probably stop masturbating, because you ejaculate a million little humans each time.

please read the thread before you post, myself and others have answered this too many times for me to bother to answer again, click the back button douche.

 

[katie_tully]

No, we went over the masturbation thing. I'll find his reply.

 

[bshoc]

As long as you can actually describe what is going on at any given time, it's fine. Common classifications really make it much easier though and there's no need to dismiss them.

Was there a need to dismiss Pluto as the 9th planet?

 

[katie_tully]

Well you haven't read enough then, yes sperm and eggs are "potential" life and thus do not constitute a right to life, a fetus is a unique being, something isn't "potential" when it already is what you claim its potential to be.

I believe that was his response.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

No, it's giving something unborn and unformed more rights than that of an existing person.

[Devil's advocate]False, if the foetus is indeed an individual, then its right to life is a more entrenched right than a woman's right to choose[/devil's advocate]

 

[bshoc]

I believe that was his response.

My first one was the best, that was a frustrated third time I answered it, its not like the propostion itself was a valid one anyway, the difference between sperm, eggs and a fetus is more than a fetus and a newborn.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

I believe that was his response.

So he's given a circular definition? A foetus is human because it is not a potential human. It is not a potential human because it is a human.

 

[katie_tully]

But I thought you said...

I also understand that they're nothing more than arbitrary divisions

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Was there a need to dismiss Pluto as the 9th planet?

Not a need, but to make things simpler, accepting bodies such as it as a planet was going to mean we'd have alot more planets, some of these much more rediculous to consider planets than pluto however a planet by the same facts that made pluto one.

 

[katie_tully]

So he's given a circular definition?

Quite frankly, he's given nothing but verbal diarrhea.

 

[bshoc]

So he's given a circular definition? A foetus is human because it is not a potential human. It is not a potential human because it is a human.

Sperm and egg are genetically identical to the person they come from, a fetus is a unique being upon itself.

And personhood is both sebjective and irrelevant, the fact that a person will develop from a fetus unless tampered should be reason enough to protect it from the abortionists vacuum tube.

 

[bshoc]

But I thought you said...

There is a difference between splitting one process into component parts and the differentiation of two completely different but conditionally related things.

 

[katie_tully]

sebjective

I like it when you make words up. Reading your posts is like doing a find-a-word.