1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

The Great Big Abortion Debate (READ THE FIRST POST!)

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by TheFightingPikachu, Feb 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Manafi's Dream

    Manafi's Dream フェアリータイプタイム

    I didn't "move on to another point." I gave my own response as to why your position is a load of crap. Killing someone maliciously with a gun or knife is wrong, especially when the victim has a life which may include a family. Aborting your baby because you're scared of how big of a change the baby will make in your life isn't malicious; it's human. Fear of the unknown is what makes us who we are. Some people let the fear get the better of them. And sometimes, it's just not fear; it's a person who doesn't want the baby, and a baby saved from a life of no one to love it is better than a baby born into a miserable existence.

    See above.

    Because once that baby is outside the womb, there's no going back, no second chances for abortion, no nothing, so the mother ends up being stuck with a baby she does not want. That baby is completely there; it's got every characteristic of a newborn baby, and that includes being out of the womb.

    You've tried to use this argument before that some adult humans aren't sentient. Well, if you had noticed in one of my previous posts, I did make the point to say that all humans with normally functioning brains are sentient, avoiding the inclusion of the mentally retarded or comatose.

    Second, but that's not true. A lot of children born to parents who don't want them are abandoned by their parents, whether it be to orphanages, grandparents, or someone's doorstep in a basket. Why force a woman to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want only to have the baby be abandoned later?

    Missing my point. When I said labor, I meant it as a blanket term referring to actually being born.

    And yet, the official position of the federal government on abortion is summarized in this suit that I'm sure you're familiar with.

    If so many pregnancies end in miscarriages, then why tell a woman she can't abort? She's not guaranteed a miscarriage, but she's probably praying for one, so why not give her what she wants and send her on her way?

    As in miscarriages threatening the success of the pregnancy. Yeesh...

    I support the rights of the truly living, as in anyone who has a life and isn't inside a womb. Are you seriously going to choose to protect the rights of a fetus who isn't even half a year old in most cases over someone who has lived 20+ years and has certain inalienable rights?

    I never argued skin cells. Get your facts straight, or your side comments will become as mixed up as your arguments.

    As many arguments as it took the black citizens across this nation to win equal civil rights, and that's the way it will be until extremists like yourself get off their high horse and accept the reality that they're fighting a losing war against liberalism in a world where conservatism has become obsolete.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  2. Iceberg

    Iceberg A human

    This made me laugh. In a good way. No woman wants to go through the pain and suffering of pregnancy. Ever wonder why pregnant women get the time of work? It is because they are in too much pain and at too much of a physical disability to work.
  3. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    As opposed to laughing in a bad way? Getting time off work is just another benefit of pregnancy. I think you can also go on the carpool lane too because you have another person living inside of you.
  4. Scriptor Scorpio

    Scriptor Scorpio Science Hero

    As I've stated, multiquotes annoy me, so here are short summations of the particular debaters' arguments and how they clash with the topic's rules. Or a lengthy explanation why their argument is considered void, at least in this topic (as given by the topic starter).

    - A fetus is alive. This is beyond question. Even before conception, the two reproductive cells are alive. Thus, the argument that a fetus is nonliving may be often repeated—spreading and multiplying in popular discussion—but it is dead wrong. As an argument for abortion being legal, it cannot stand.

    - Some admit that a fetus is alive, but do not believe that it is human. Like the previous argument, this would clearly make a difference, because most of us understand that killing a cow is not murder. If the fetus is not human, it cannot be entitled to human rights. But, just like the previous objection, it is completely false. When two human reproductive cells unite, the result is a fertilized egg with a full set of human genes. Obviously, the fetus is not fully developed before birth, but it doesn't have to be to be human; neither is a seven-year-old, and seven-year-olds are undoubtedly human. One doesn't need to be an adult to be human.

    - Some come very close to realizing that a fetus is a human by saying that it is merely part of a human. If a fetus were merely an extension of the mother, abortion would be no different than removing a kidney or an arm. Having one's tonsils out or having an amputation is not killing anyone, only removing a part of the body. The implied right of privacy (first cited in Roe v. Wade) plays prominently in this argument, since a woman has control over her own body, and if she needs an arm or an appendix removed by a surgeon, the government shouldn't be interfering.
    Just like the previous two, it would make sense if it were true, but the fetus is not simply a part of the mother. It has some of the mother's DNA, that's for sure, but it also has some of the father's DNA. Your arm has your DNA (which you inherited from both your parents), not yours mixed with someone else's. A fetus is not part of a human, it is a human.

    - Some see no problem with getting rid of a fetus because they call it a parasite. It is inside another life form, it gains energy from the mother, and often causes other undesirable effects like morning sickness. Who would argue that a mosquito should be protected?
    Before anything else, I want to point out how it blatantly contradicts two of the previous objections. Since only living things can be parasites, the idea of a nonliving fetus is incompatible with the parasitism argument. Also, a part of your body, like an arm or kidney, can never be a parasite even if it becomes dreadfully diseased. Therefore a fetus cannot simultaneously be a part of the mother and a parasite of the mother.

    Of course, not only do the people who use the parasitism argument need to make up their minds, they also need to get their facts straight. A fetus is not a parasite.

    Since a parasitic relationship must be between two organisms of different species, a fetus is not a parasite. Also, parasites usually enter the host from outside, while a fetus is born from reproductive cells—one of which is the mother's own. A fetus isn't taking energy from its host, and in fact the mother's body helps nourish the fetus. The relationship between a parasite and its host is fundamentally different from the one between a mother and offspring. (When parents are frustrated by their teenager eating them out of house and home, they might use the term in a humorous way that we know better than to take literally!) If a mother doesn't want the fetus, that doesn't make it a parasite. The sole purpose of calling a fetus a parasite is to make it sound like it has done something worthy of death, which is self-serving and revisionist. A fetus is offspring, and offspring are not parasites of their mothers.

    - Some argue that without certain higher-order thoughts, a fetus is not a person. To be a person, you need self-awareness, rationality, and some specific emotional capabilities. A fetus, it is argued, is neither self-aware, nor rational, nor capable of advanced emotions.
    I will wait to describe why this is supposed to matter. Before that, here are a few important challenges to the non-personhood of the fetus:

    First, note that the personhood argument is stated dogmatically. However, it may be worthwhile to note that the other four arguments are sometimes stated in less-dogmatic versions. For example, "We don't know when life begins," "We don't know when the fetus becomes human," etc. Thus, the personhood argument might be exaggerated, in which case it would be better stated, "We don't know when a fetus becomes a person." This removes a lot of the sting of this argument, since its whole point is that persons have certain rights (including a right to life). If the fetus might be a person, then it might have rights that abortion would violate.

    Second, when does a fetus become a person? Is it a person several days before birth? A few days after the start of the third trimester? Could it be before the third trimester? If a fetus has to become a person, the point at which it does is absolutely crucial to this argument, and the personhood argument itself indicates that no abortions should happen after that point.

    Third, with the fetus in a location that strongly hinders interaction with other persons, it's kinda hard to show that it couldn't start emoting or interacting rationally (on a newborn's level or slightly less) if it were outside its mother. Even a fetus three days before birth hasn't really interacted with the world. Thus this whole argument may reduce to "a fetus is in a location where it can't interact in certain ways." Of itself, it might not really be incapable of interacting using certain emotions.

    Fourth, it is not clear that personhood can be gained or lost. When a child is two hours old, it can't use language, it's reasoning is certainly minimalistic at best, and near-constant crying is not evidence of empathy. (And "self-aware" might be a poor label for some newborns.) I'm not sure a fetus can be excluded from personhood so easily.

    Some argue that the law is species-ist if something like a cow can be killed while a fetus can't. "Why should the law favor humans?" they ask. Yet the laws of just about every nation favor humans, since no nations of which I am aware allow animals to, say, own property or enter into business contracts. The decision in Roe v. Wade was supposed to be based on language in the Constitution; it was not ostensibly an interpretation designed to radically change how we view the relationship between human and animal rights. And it is also significant that no one seems to question the general use of the phrase "human rights" except in an abortion debate.

    Therefore, while the first four pro-choice arguments were completely false, the fifth is uncertain but irrelevant, unless one assumes incorrectly that persons are the only ones who have rights according to the law.

    (3) Note that I described the fetus as "a separate human." As discussed above, a fetus is not part of the mother. Even some generally reasonable debaters seem unable to see this distinction, thinking that pro-life arguments would prohibit the killing of each of our individual cells. Yet there is a difference between something being human (i.e., a human arm, a human cell), and being a separate human. A fetus is separate. An arm is not. Furthermore, as discussed above, a fetus obviously doesn't have to be an adult human in order to be a human.

    - Abortion is homicide
    First, a fetus is a separate human. It has a full set of human genes and it is not a part of its mother.
    Second, the intentional killing of a human is homicide. Homicide is illegal except in those cases where it has sufficient justification. One example of justifiable homicide would be self-defense.

    In conclusion, my argument here is not that absolutely all abortions should be illegal. Since abortion is homicide, I argue that any given abortion needs to be justified independently, and many are not justified. The mother is not justified in killing a fetus just because she does not want it. My fundamental point in this debate is that abortion is basically legal under our current system when it should not be. One can say that a woman should have control of her own body, yet for a fetus to come into existence (except in cases of rape), she had to give up some of that control over her body to some man (and killing the fetus is exercising control over a different body, too). It can only be made to appear as a matter of a woman's choice by rampant misinformation and fallacious reasoning. Instead, it is really about the rights of the fetus.

    @Iceberg and supporters:

    No further statement about an unborn child in any early or late term may be made about it being human (it is), a parasite (it isn't), an extension of the mother like an arm (it isn't), or sentient (it is, or whether it is or not is irrelevant when seeing other non-sentient creatures having more rights). The mother not wanting the fetus/child/unborn baby/zygote isn't a justification for disposing of it. View my proposed three-strike system. It might be in your grey area, but it seems you still try to justify a woman being allowed to abort a baby because they don't want to go through labor anything.

    Be sure to use terms carefully!
    Terms are important, whether you're talking about carrying a fetus to term, or terminating a pregnancy. *Rimshot* Wordplay aside, you need to be careful to say what you mean. If you say that a fetus isn't alive, people won't understand you if you really mean a fetus doesn't have personhood. Also, some definitions of the word "baby" specifically indicate that the term applies only after the child is born, though others even specifically apply the term to a child in the womb. Finally, as I recommended above, you might want to be careful about using the term "human being"--no matter which side you're on.

    @ mattj: I suggest using a specialised term to use in your arguments so the pro-choicers don't rage over your terms. It will quicken the debate if you do.

    Don't describe pregnancy or delivery with terms of exaggerated horror.
    I understand that carrying a baby is difficult and that delivery can be very painful for many women. I do not seek to downplay these facts. However, some describe these in terms that approach actual torture, almost as though someone is purposely inflicting pain on the woman. It is also wise to remember that some women actually want to have children. It is not honest to describe pregnancy or delivery in terms that make them sound like things no woman would want to endure. Some also state that abortion can be more painful than delivery, making the whole argument from painful childbirth self-refuting.

    @ Iceberg: your arguments against forcing women to go through pregnancy seem quite exaggerated (that it's always excruciating). If you have a special condition that makes pregnancy painful or it is caused by rape (a case can be made for mental torture), that's another issue. But my own mother isn't exactly regretting having to go through four pregnancies and having four children. So hearing you say no woman wants to go through the pains of labor, makes me feel ashamed I gave the signal to be born (I read in a new study that, unless influenced by medical techniques, the baby itself gives off a chemical signal to begin being born).
  5. mattj

    mattj .

    You asked for "one benefit of unwanted pregnancy" and I provided 6, so... I guess that article does prove much?
    Ah but! As I pointed out, that's not the conditions we're talking about! Its not just a negative impact! There are positive impacts too! Many of them! I'm not talking about a non-sentient conjoined twin who only has negative impacts. I'm asking you, if any conjoined twin happens to not have consciousness at whatever moment, should the other conjoined twin be allowed to kill it? Do you really support the random, on-a-whim murder of conjoined individuals based on the lack of sentience? If not, then why do you support the random, on-a-whim murder of unborn children based on sentience? Or do you realize that sentience in and of itself cannot justify abortion? Its not even a factor.

    of course they are sentient

    what on earth are you talking about?
    you didn't say it you just implied it
    okay okay
    Not just mine. The opinion of myriad others, including untold medical professionals/biologists/scientists. Its like saying "in your opinion the world is a sphere".
    Yo. I read that whole article. I didn't see a single place in that article that said that not having sentience makes you not of the human species. I read several lines that said that having a human's level of sentience makes human's special, but not that not having a human's level of sentience makes you non-human. There are plenty of humans that have a lower level of sentience, the severely mentally retarded for example. You keep referring to that article, which doesn't prove the point you're getting at. I suppose you don't look at the mentally retarded as human do you? After all, many animals have a higher level of sentience than them. I guess since you don't consider them to be human you're fine with killing them too.

    you really

    and I do mean really

    think that the order that the DNA pairs are in


    make a significant difference


    I don't think we can have this conversation anymore. You need to read into how DNA works, I'm sorry we just need to end this here.

    And actually, that's the truth. There was more to respond to, but if you don't understand how DNA works, we can't really have a conversation about whether or not DNA makes a person human. We're kind of stuck till you learn a bit more.

    Oh and


    I'd respond to those quotes tit for tat, but most of them were "nuh uh I disagree, with no evidence or argument to consider" so I'll pass. Unless I missed something?
  6. Manafi's Dream

    Manafi's Dream フェアリータイプタイム

    Rather than try to respond to Scripto Scorpio's very long, very tedious post that includes several arguments I have either dropped in the past or have never embraced in the first place, I am going to refer back to a very early post in this thread that exspressed the pro-choice side's perspective of the situation better than anything we've said yet, and it should also put many arguments of you pro-lifers to rest:


    All benefits are irrelevant to a woman who is now stuck with a child they neither care for nor want to care for. But I'm sure you are friends with plenty of women who have had unwanted pregnancies and wish they had the child. Wait, you don't? Shocker! Like Psychic said, benefits can only be determined by the mother as to whether or not they are actually worthwhile; no man could ever speak from experience.

    Wrong again! Only great apes, dolphins, orcas, elephants, and European Magpies are truly sentient animals, as they are self-aware. Note: sentience is not the same as instinct. Arguing that, because a chicken runs to the chicken feed because it is aware it is there would be wrong. It is the chicken's instinct to search for food and eat it once it finds some.

    This test is how scientists test self-awareness in animals and, ultimately, sentience.

    Oh, I'm sure you will. And, either you are a very poor typist, or you have a horrible sense of humor (Mandi? come on, seriously?).
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  7. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    Let me cut to Psychic's argument there in nutshell.

    Yes, why shouldn't it? There's a limit to how far you can take deciding what to do with your own body. For example, getting and knocking back stuff like heroin etc is ILLEGAL. Why? Because it is harmful. People get to have freedom, within reason. Contrary to what people may think, you do NOT have the legal right to do whatever you want with your own body. Laws against drugs is an example. Driving while drunk is also an example, it may be your body, but you put the lives of yourself and others at risk if you drive while intoxicated with alcohol. You have a very large amount of freedom, but not total freedom. It's when people start to say they can do stuff with little-to-no regard for the health of others, even if it's with their own body, that I get angry. Let's face it, you can't use Psychic's argument to put pro-life arguments to rest.

    Also, FYI, there is a user here that has posted in this thread with the user name "Mandi.", mattj must have just gotten a bit mixed up, that's all.
  8. blackpeppper

    blackpeppper New Member


    "an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it".


    HUMAN FETUS IS NOT A BABY (GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART), but a parasite because of the biological relationship that’s based on the behavior of one organism (fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:
    As a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its TROPHOBLAST cells, hijacked her immune system by using NEUROKININ B, HCG and INDOLEAMINE 2, 3-DIOXYGENASE --- so her body doesn't kill it, and it can continue stealing her nutrients to survive, and causing her harm or potential death."


    Have you ever had sex before with anyone? Do you even know what rape is? A woman under rape or consensual sex doesn't give up control.... either she is forced into having sex or she IS willing participant in it. SO Please, stop talking about sex as if you know anything about it.

    Again, the human fetus IS not a baby, but a parasite and science proves it; and pregnancy is known to cause HARM to women that can last their whole lives long: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm. Thus, there is no law that can force a woman to endure all that against her will and legal rights, since the fetus has none:


    NO HUMAN ( that means the FETUS, too) has a right to life or any due process rights by the 14th amendment to use another human's body or body parts AGAINST their will, civil and constitutional rights: that's why you are not forced to donate your kidney---the human fetus is no exception; this is supported by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment AND 13th amendment, which makes reproductive slavery unconstitutional.


    "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. "


    this makes viability unconstitutional because pregnancy is not a crime.

    consensual sex=/= a legal, binding contract to an unwanted fetus to live; and abortion is not murder, the unlawful killing with intent. "

  9. Manafi's Dream

    Manafi's Dream フェアリータイプタイム

    Drugs and alcohol are not regulated simply because they harm your own body; you said it yourself, they put others in danger, something abortion does not do. The child is not as large of a concern when it comes to who you put first in a pregnancy. The mother is the most important person out of the two. We as men will never be able to understand the trials of pregnancy, a factor which weighs heavily on your argument more than mine. Regulating what women do with their embryos is like regulating what we do with out sperm: it's an invasion of privacy, a privacy that no matter how personal should NOT be intruded upon by outside parties. Now, I do believe doctors should have the choice to not perform abortions as individuals if they find the procedure to be too intense, but women need to have the access to abortion. A majority of women probably will not even use abortion, but it is unfair to the likes of them who would like to have the procedure performed.

    I would say more, but, honestly, I have other things to do and will try to respond with more later.

    Oh, well then yes, that does make more sense.
  10. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    OK, I think it'd be easier if you respond with all your points later. I'll just say for now that I view the mother and the unborn child as equals, at the very least for the sake of erring on the side of caution. Also, with abortion, you ARE taking actions that will harm someone else. In this case, the mother is taking action that will bring harm (actually death) to someone else, the unborn child within her, so it's actually the same kind of thing as with drugs.

    @blackpeppper - IMHO, you're really grasping at straws with semantics, by using solely the way definitions are written to justify terms such as 'parasite' and 'reproductive slavery'. Regarding parasites, they just leech, they do not continue the bloodline of the host. The unborn child was created in the mother's womb, and does NOT have a choice to go elsewhere. Furthermore, it does not 'hijack' the mother's immune system, it sends signals to tell the mother's body a baby that needs care has implanted, there's a world of difference. Without stuff like this, we would go EXTINCT. There have already been several links to the American College of Paediatrics put in near the end of this thread where scientists that SPECIALISE in growth state that life starts at conception. Furthermore, IMHO, the law is wrong, the US Supreme Court screwed up Roe vs Wade on a monumental scale, as I have stated before. Only the dissenting judges expressed anything that was common sense.

    Pro-choicers really need to stop using such loaded terms as 'parasite' if they want to be taken seriously by a lot of pro-lifers. Finally, try to use scientific sources directly, instead of ranting weblogs if you can. If you can't do that, then at least try wikipedia articles that cite scientific papers (I do see you do some of this, though, but not for the science parts). I'm sorry, but I cannot take a source as http://galerouth.blogspot.com seriously at all.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  11. Scriptor Scorpio

    Scriptor Scorpio Science Hero

    Thank you for answering blackpepper's post. Semantics should not be the issue, certainly when it's abused to circle around the real issue here: let us consider that both individuals, woman and child/embryo/zygote/blastocyst/etc. have equal rights. Then either way, one will get sacrificed. This is a terrible choice, pro-choicers overvalue the reputational productive life of the woman, as they believe destroying a chance of a succesful career and physical scars is worse than torture. Pro-lifers overvalue the life of every single thing and undervalue a the actual possibility that the forcibly non-aborted child will have a happy life. Truth is, if you look at risk analysis, most individuals growing up in an unloving family and a bad neighbourhood will far too many times end up miserable for far too many times in their life.

    @blackpepper: I quoted the first post that state the rules, if you don't like them, don't post here. Make your own topic.

    Now, how to ease the minds and hearts of pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike? Well, they will never agree on whether abortion is homicide, because that won't sit easy in their heart. Killing a human is wrong, even out of self-defense, you feel horrible about taking someone's life. But what if it's not a human... Genius! And so the two sides were born. If you insist op putting yourself on one of both sides and put a label on your sweater, you'll never ever agree. If however you type the status: 'truth seeker, pending', then we can work. Because our political parties are especially known for vetoing everything so they remain strong and they don't move towards 'center', losing any more extremist voters, I strongly oppose distinctive sides, each revelling in their splinter factions pf extremity. But I also detest grey areas where freedom is a dangerous thing. In the grey, the law cannot punish those that go just op the border with the black and spit at it, pardon my drama.

    So, as I've read up on Planned Parenthood, I do suggest that contraception should be provided to everyone in order to prevent couples having to go through abortion if they aren't fit to be parents and it was an accident. Think of it as an addition to Medicare (here, such a thing has been onsidered normal for many years).

    But just like the moral dilemma with smokers using health insurance to treat their lung cancer, we shouldn't allow women to ask for an abortion when they didn't have the responsibility to take contraception. Everything prohibited by law is to try to prevent harm to people, their financial security, their health, animals, the environment, etc. At least, I think it is.

    So when a woman refuses to take contraception, use the three-strike system so after the third abortion she is institutionalised untill she is evaluated to be sane enough to be a responsible member of society. No need for sterilising or something like that, just like with prisoners given a life-long jail sentences instead of the chair, the woman is still allowed the ability to reproduce for if someday, in her forties, she is sane enough to use contraception or choose to have children.

    If she takes contraception but still gets pregnant or if she gets raped, she may get an abortion, because it is the best for the mother and the child alike. If the child is born, it and the mother will be miserable because she didn't choose to have it and/or is unfit to be a parent. If it is aborted, even late-term (and hopefully the woman doesn't die during that, but opting it is better than the child being born and both of them growing miserable), she will perhaps be saddened she aborted a possible child and the child was killed without feeling a thing (which should be given attention too). Seems like choice number two is better for both. This goes beyond 'rights' which were made to protect people's happiness, not to force someone else to give it up.

    But rights and duties, which people always seem to forget, can be forced onto someone when they destroy someone else's. Ah yes, here's the hitch, either way someone's rights will be obliterated and pro-lifers argue that the baby loses all of its potential rights, not just the right to live happily. And the pro-choicers believe the potential part is key. They are not realised, so they do not exist. If only things were so easy, so black and white, one side fighting the other and 'beating' them geocentrists, conservatives, hippies, whichever side is painted to be 'wrong'. Well, science proved geocentrists wrong, but it cannot do the same for abortion. Psychology can.

    What choice gives both people the most happiness overall? Choice number two. You say a child might be very happy and so the woman should be forced to gestate? Even if we're talking about something say cereals, which I enjoy eating, I do not enjoy it at all when I'm forced to and I don't want to at the moment. And there is a small problem even as it becomes possible to carry unborn children to an unwilling mother: it carries the genes from the original mother, which could be called her property.

    So, you can't take half of woman's genes, just like you can't take sperm or DNA without permission. It's some kind of privacy right, I'm guessing. So yes, a woman may abort her baby if she had an accident or was raped and doesn't want her genes to help grow a baby. Want the right to reproduce to only be in the hands of someone who uses it responsibly instead of it being a side-effect of having sex and only 99,99% chance of not getting pregnant, like a driver's license? Sorry, don't think that'll ever happen, though feel free to discuss it in some other topic.

    What about the father? If he had checked the woman was using contraception, but she faked that or lied, he has no responsibility, because it's a bit like rape: you're forced to provide half of your DNA for a child you don't want to have or care for. If he doesn't check, he comes into the three-strike system, so he doesn't make a lot of women pregnant while stating 'they tricked him'. Any couple going steady should discuss what they would do if they were to have a child, because if an accident occurs and only one of both wants to keep it, we've got all kinds of problems.

    The key word is, acting responsibly. Should you feel to do so or heed the warnings of advisors, you're institutionalised untill you do. If someone's a kleptomaniac or any of the sort, they are a danger to anybody's rights. Please reply to this arguments, I hope it isn't this clear-cut and I hope you can nuance things or even prove me wrong. But don't ignore me. That's unworthy of a debater.
  12. mattj

    mattj .

    Yo manafi,

    I never said that the benefits of pregnancy make abortion unjustifiable. He asked for a single benefit of pregnancy and I provided 6. The 2 second google search gave me hundreds, but 6>1 so that's all I needed. Stop assuming that every single thing I type is an argument against abortion. I was answering a challenge. Read the convo before you chime in.
    Self awareness =/= sentience. I already provided the definition of sentience:
    Most animals feel or perceive things, including the "cows, chickens, and pigs" that he mentioned. Why would you even want to argue whether or not cows are sentient in this thread? The only reason I posted that definition is because what he said made literally no sense to me. I wanted to know what he's talking about.
    Ctrl+F "sentience"

    0 results

    looks like that's not how scientists determine sentience

    try reading your sources once in a while
    I swear to glob I thought your username was Mandi something something. My bad.

    And concering Psychic's post, as well written and thoughtful as it is, its already been addressed before in this thread. That's the problem with your side of the debate. You just keep dragging up the same debunked positions over and over again, ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Oh? That argument has been addressed? Lets bring it up again!
  13. Iceberg

    Iceberg A human

    By laughing in a bad way I meant like ridicule :p Look at all these wonderful benefits of pregnancy. I think I'll go walk around the shady part of town tonight and hope that I get raped so that I can experience the joy of raising a child I didn't have any control over.

    It doesn't prove anything. The article just said some women felt more energized. No proof.

    If the child has no negative impact on you, such as not causing you to lose your job, halt education, destroy your body, cause you mental torment, etc. then you shouldn't abort it. If it is a child you wanted and planned for aborting it would be crazy. Just as if you have a conjoined twin (legally the death of one would be the parents decision, assuming it is while the twins are under 18) that you want and doesn't hinder the life of the sentient twin it shouldn't be killed. However if the sentient twin's life will be a living hell because of the non-sentient conjoined twin, than the non-sentient twin should be killed.

    Not in the way people separate humans from animals with. Cows don't have complex thoughts about life, emotions, or how they feel about other cows. Humans do. Zygotes, like the cow, do not think in the way humans do. If a zygote is going to have a right to live than so is a cow.

    First of all, I have linked to many medical professionals who have opposing opinions. Second of all, there is proof the world is not flat. It is a black and white issue. Whether abortion is immoral or not is not black and white. Also, just because I think the world is a sphere, and so do many professionals, that doesn't give us the right to take away your right to believe the world is flat.

    I see the point you're making, and you don't seem to be grasping what I mean. You are arguing that a fetus deserves to live even thought it will ruin a woman's life. Correct? While at a certain stage a fetus does have brain wave activity and a pumping heart, so it shows signs of life. However, a fetus doesn't think like a "real" human does. Therefore, the way I see it is that the life of a fetus is no more valuable than the life of a cow or chicken. And the human race has no problem killing cows or chickens.

    For the record, if you are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of your reach you might as well die. Your life will be painful and you'll only be a drain on the system and your family.

    As a biology student I understand completely. Obviously it makes a difference or we would be harry and have tails. FYI, it is also the specific strands of DNA that are read. Some sequences are not copied by tRNA to make proteins. Which DNA sequences are "ignored" in a sense is different in every cell and species. This is why your liver cell does different things than your muscle cell. They both have the exact same sets of DNA. But the cells don't "use" the same sequences. This wasn't the point I was making though. It was either you or JDavidC that said it is human DNA that makes a zygote more important than a chicken etc. I was simply countering that we share a lot in common with out unworthy of life counterparts.

    Thank you for insulting my intelligence though. It is an excellent testament to your ignorance. The fact that you misunderstand a point and counter with an insult is marvelous. It reminds me of something the children I used to baby sit would do.

    To all those who contend that a human's (may that be zygote or actual human) right to live is more important than any of another humans rights (except for the right to live) I have this to say to you. You are going to have to give me your kidney and then nurse me back to health for the next nine months. You didn't plan on this, nor do you want to do this, but without it I'll die. Oh and with that you'll have to give up your job and anything else you were doing like school. Because I am going to completely take over your life.
  14. mattj

    mattj .

    This is the core difference between our positions. We value all innocent human life. You only value human life that fits your idea of ideal. There really cannot be reconciliation.

    How can you look at severely mentally disabled children and think "meh, they might as well die..."?
  15. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    That's not really what Iceberg said, though. She said 'if you are so severely retarded that you are beyond basic human thought' than someone's life might not be valuable. All of the mentally disabled people I've known (since I've gone a Special Education school) even if they can't speak, are obviously capable of basic human thought. The only ones that aren't capable of any basic human thought probably fall in the category of people who will be 'vegetables' forever.

    She really should have used the word 'vegetable' instead of 'retarded' since anyone that I've ever known as 'retarded' is capable of basic human thought. She does not come off as a Social Darwinist, just pro euthanization. Although you may reject that as well. Are you sure you did not misunderstand her?
  16. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    Even if I was pro-life, I would still agree with you on this point. While a fetus has potential to be something, a severely retarded person does have potential to be anything.

    I see that mattj has literally put you on the record by quoting you in his sig. He did this to me once also. Unfortunately, I don't think it's against the rules. Either that, or Profesco really doesn't care. What I did was put in my sig a quote with the last paragraph of this vm from a mod on the Zelda Universe Forums. This was during one of mattj's bans from ZU. They have stricter rules there.
  17. Manafi's Dream

    Manafi's Dream フェアリータイプタイム

    I'm just making a point that even if you can find one billion benefits, you'll never get those to stick for a woman who doesn't want the pregnancy.

    Here ya go. This is one giant article on animal consciousness and its relationship to non-human sentience (plenty of sentiences to find with Ctrl+F). I haven't skimmed the whole thing yet, but go nuts.

    Really? 0_o

    And you only have one answer to this very valid argument! This isn't a matter of just outright denying people abortion because you believe it's murder; you're telling all of the women in America that you're a man, and since this bothers you, you aren't afraid to take away a basic right that every woman has concerning their body. This isn't the same as tattoos, drugs, or alcohol: the fetus is an extension of the mother: where the mother goes, the fetus goes; whatever nutrients the mother obtains, the fetus shares. Telling a mother what she can't do with her baby is like telling us guys what we can't do with out penises, and I sure as glob wouldn't put up with that (Adventure Time has given us great words for our vocabulary; I can tell you've seen it).
  18. JDavidC

    JDavidC Banned

    Here, you can go as far as saying if you need an organ transplant to survive, and I was the only compatible organ donor, then I may as well donate said organ. There's a limit to how far you can take the organ donor analogy. However, if the hypothetical situation of you needing a kidney transplant in order to keep living cropped up, and I was the only suitable donor that can be found in time, then I had better go through with donating a kidney.

    EDIT -
    There's a big difference, the baby is a separate entity, even though it is connected to the mother. A penis, on the other hand, is part of a man, and there is at least one big restriction on what we can do with it, such as not using it to have sex with women that don't want it. Unfortunately, that does not stop some people, despite rape being a major crime.
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
  19. mattj

    mattj .


    I admit I might be misunderstanding something, but Iceberg said word for word "might as well die". I can't comprehend that. I have family that are so severely retarded that basic human thoughts are out of their reach.


    And concerning your source Manifi, if you haven't read it why should I?
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
  20. Sadib

    Sadib Time Lord Victorious

    You just have a higher regard for life than we do.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page