The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[lyounamu]

Holy fuck you have no idea, do you? Contraception ISN'T PERFECT.

EDIT: Hint, if it was we wouldn't be having this discussion, get it? If it was PERFECT there would be almost no need for abortions.

You didn't fully read my threads. I didn't say it was impossible get unwanted pregnencies if you were careful. I was suggesting that it is extremely unlikely to get unwanted pregnencies given that you are careful. If it is based on pure probability where nothing could be done to prevent it in the first place, yes, I don't necessarily perceive that to be the result of irresponsible action. But the chance of that is minute.

 

[lyounamu]

I would reply seriously, then I remember your comments on birth control. Lol.

You have got no grounds for serious debate.

 

[Kwayera]

You didn't fully read my threads. I didn't say it was impossible get unwanted pregnencies if you were careful. I was suggesting that it is extremely unlikely to get unwanted pregnencies given that you are careful. If it is based on pure probability where nothing could be done to prevent it in the first place, yes, I don't necessarily perceive that to be the result of irresponsible action. But the chance of that is minute.

Not really. Assume you were using both condoms and the pill, and correctly. The pill has a failure rate of about 0.05-0.1%. The condom has a failure rate of up to around 10%, so combine that to get a hypothetical failure rate of, IDK, 0.01%.

Times that by 21 million people, and you get 2100.

I believe the actual failure rates are usually higher than that.

 

[black_kat_meow]

You didn't fully read my threads. I didn't say it was impossible get unwanted pregnencies if you were careful. I was suggesting that it is extremely unlikely to get unwanted pregnencies given that you are careful. If it is based on pure probability where nothing could be done to prevent it in the first place, yes, I don't necessarily perceive that to be the result of irresponsible action. But the chance of that is minute.

It's not actually that small, LISTEN TO KWAYERA. Or look it up yourself.

I do have grounds to debate, but I see no reason to continue with you until you actually gain some background knowledge on the matter.

 

[Captain Hero]

You didn't fully read my threads. I didn't say it was impossible get unwanted pregnencies if you were careful. I was suggesting that it is extremely unlikely to get unwanted pregnencies given that you are careful. If it is based on pure probability where nothing could be done to prevent it in the first place, yes, I don't necessarily perceive that to be the result of irresponsible action. But the chance of that is minute.

Do you consider sexual intercourse to be irresponsible? I think your lack of in-depth knowledge of the topic from your own perspective is a hindrance to adding anything of value to the debate.

 

[Vladimir Putin]

It should not be up to a specific individual's opinions to create the law for which everyone should follow. The decision for abortion should be left for the woman, provided with therapy or whatever else is required for HER to make that decision, not anyone else.

PS. lyounamu needs to get laid.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Probably, which is why I don't actually agree with having an "absolute limit". If you HAVE to have a legal boundary, have it somewhere around there.

o_0

No I get what you're saying and it's somewhat agreeable (if I thought that's where the dividing line should be), but we should make every effort to ensure laws aren't that fuzzy.

It's not actually that small, LISTEN TO KWAYERA. Or look it up yourself.

Why don't you stop leeching off other people and come up with something yourself. :rofl:

Alex?!

The Iron years have had a tremendous impact on us all.

Do you consider sexual intercourse to be irresponsible?

I think everyone agrees that there are degrees of irresponcibilities.

Hehehe, that rhymed. No but what I'm trying to say is that everyone knows what could happen and takes the chance, you know? :apig:

 

[Miffstaa]

o_0
No but what I'm trying to say is that everyone knows what could happen and takes the chance, you know? :apig:

yeah that is true and especially now a days all the kids dont give a shit with thirteen year olds getting pregnant etc.

but i was wondering , if getting an abortion is irresponsible then would having the child but giving it up for adoption be responsible? heck what am i saying, yes i think it is

 

[charlesdinio]

I see, I see. Don't you think this sets a dangerous precedent for amnesiacs and whatever? I mean, you're not a hypocrite are you!!??!?!?!?!

Leave it the courts or doctors discretion.

Yeah man. I mean, it's pretty obvious that this argument is worth shit but you can keep saying it because eventually it's gonna become fact! Jackass.


Whether or not I feel sorry for it is completely irrelevant. We, meaning society, are trying to come up with guidelines to become law. These guidelines must be solid and not open to interpretation, and most importantly based on actual fact rather than emotion.

We have guidelines which are already law. Levine Ruling 1971. Jackass.

Arguably. Argue it then why don't you? That's what everyone else has sensibly been doing.

I'm arguing that abortion should be legalised completely. Not whether a fetus has feelings, I put the word 'arguably' there to leave it up to the reader. And for the record - if you can remember something from when you were a fetus, feel free to share it.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Leave it the courts or doctors discretion.

lol

We have guidelines which are already law. Levine Ruling 1971. Jackass

lol

I'm arguing that abortion should be legalised completely. Not whether a fetus has feelings, I put the word 'arguably' there to leave it up to the reader. And for the record - if you can remember something from when you were a fetus, feel free to share it.

lol

 

[lyounamu]

Do you consider sexual intercourse to be irresponsible? I think your lack of in-depth knowledge of the topic from your own perspective is a hindrance to adding anything of value to the debate.

How contradictory can you get? It's like you are saying that your trolling benefited the thread.

 

[lyounamu]

It's not actually that small, LISTEN TO KWAYERA. Or look it up yourself.

I do have grounds to debate, but I see no reason to continue with you until you actually gain some background knowledge on the matter.

Yeah, I do listen to her but her point only reaffirmed my statement. Australia's population is about 21 million but it's not like all people have sexual intercourses. I would assume that less than 30% of the population would be involved if we subtract the kids, babies and older people. If we take out all other people, we would end up with approximately 20-30% that fit into the category. And even if we take in the actual probability of that, we would probably look at about 500 people may be?

And if we look at the chance of their misuses, only few hundreds would be due to pure probability. Wouldn't you perceive few hundred cases to be extremely unlikely given that the population is about 21 million in here? There might be a flaw in my calculation but it really is designed to be a rough estimation. Do your maths before you say anything.

 

[black_kat_meow]

Yeah, I do listen to her but her point only reaffirmed my statement. Australia's population is about 21 million but it's not like all people have sexual intercourses. I would assume that less than 30% of the population would be involved if we subtract the kids, babies and older people. If we take out all other people, we would end up with approximately 20-30% that fit into the category. And even if we take in the actual probability of that, we would probably look at about 500 people may be?

And if we look at the chance of their misuses, only few hundreds would be due to pure probability. Wouldn't you perceive few hundred cases to be extremely unlikely given that the population is about 21 million in here? There might be a flaw in my calculation but it really is designed to be a rough estimation. Do your maths before you say anything.

Well, considering you said the entire 21 million isn't sexually active, it's not really as small as saying several hundred in 21 million.

The actual failure rate is higher than that anyway.

And a few hundred women still falling pregnant while using contraception is still much more than you would want, what a traumatic event. It doesn't comfort me knowing I could be one of HUNDREDS of people.

 

[Empyrean444]

I hope you don't eat meat.


I guess for me it never comes back to "life" as in when the egg and sperm meet and a genetically distinct organism is created. Yes, that is life, but I have no more responsibility to it than the steak I ate for dinner last night (and arguably, the mashed potatoes). For me it comes back to the ideas of sapience and sentience, neither of which a foetus has (before a certain age) and both of which my steak had (depending on your definitions of the terms).

A foetus is not self-conscious, has no self-awareness, is not sentient and is certainly not sapient. The fact that it has the potential to be doesn't come into it for me - how do I know that the steak I ate (or more appropriately to the context, the veal schnitzel I had a couple of days ago) didn't have the potential to be the first self-aware, self-conscious, sapient and sentient cow? I didn't, but that doesn't really matter because I don't have any romantic notions regarding potentiality or the sacredity of life.

Animals do not develop sentience, but a foetus does. We know this because plenty of animals live out their full life and are still as stupid and unconscious at the end of their lives. That said, while i can see this as justifying eating them, it doesn't justify torture.

First of all a foetus is human - humans are generally considered by most to be more important than people. You, for instance, can be very close to sure that an animal will not become 'sapient'. You can also be sure that a foetus will become sapient. Not only will it be sapient, it will be an individual. Never will their be another exactly like it. It has its potential to have its own life. By killing it, you deprive it of the experience of sentience - possibly the greatest boon to our knowledge.

Old people become vegetables; some people are so mentally deranged/impaired that it is as if they are not sentient (ie their functioning sentience is not fully developed or whole). But it is not right to kill them...

 

[Empyrean444]

yeah that is true and especially now a days all the kids dont give a shit with thirteen year olds getting pregnant etc.

but i was wondering , if getting an abortion is irresponsible then would having the child but giving it up for adoption be responsible? heck what am i saying, yes i think it is

Yes, it is irresponsible as well, but it is much less irresponsible. Also, it is the better option, because it substitutes existence for the blackened maw of cruel oblivion - a fate i would not wish to suffer!

 

[Kwayera]

Animals do not develop sentience, but a foetus does. We know this because plenty of animals live out their full life and are still as stupid and unconscious at the end of their lives. That said, while i can see this as justifying eating them, it doesn't justify torture.

Oh wow. Many flaws here. Firstly, how do you know animals do not develop sapience? Yes, many animals are "unconscious", but many are conscious, and we still kill them. Point?

First of all a foetus is human - humans are generally considered by most to be more important than people. You, for instance, can be very close to sure that an animal will not become 'sapient'. You can also be sure that a foetus will become sapient. Not only will it be sapient, it will be an individual. Never will their be another exactly like it. It has its potential to have its own life. By killing it, you deprive it of the experience of sentience - possibly the greatest boon to our knowledge.

Ah, so it's back to the old "HUMANS R SPESHUL" chestnut again. I don't CARE that a human foetus has the potential to become a sapient individual; it isn't when it's aborted, and it will never have a say in the matter. To say that it's more likely than an animal to become sapient is speciesist and an intellectual fallacy.

Old people become vegetables; some people are so mentally deranged/impaired that it is as if they are not sentient (ie their functioning sentience is not fully developed or whole). But it is not right to kill them...

I'd challenge that. We put down old and infirm animals for the mercy of it; why not humans? (Let's not go into voluntary euthanasia here, on second thought).

 

[Kwayera]

Yes, it is irresponsible as well, but it is much less irresponsible. Also, it is the better option, because it substitutes existence for the blackened maw of cruel oblivion - a fate i would not wish to suffer!

If you suffered it, you wouldn't know or care.

Another argument from emotional rhetoric, please.

 

[charlesdinio]

lol

Yeah damn right, hang your head in shame.

 

[katie tully]

cbf reading any of the responses, but 99% of you are fucking retarded and i have no idea how kway can continue to respond to the level of retardation in this thread

i bid ye farewell for tonight

 

[Iron]

So the comparison with eating a steak strikes you as appropriate too, KT?