• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
The do not exhibit the characteristics of life (the first and foremost of which being made up of cells), therefore they are not alive. Honestly, I thought this was basic biology.
Are you telling me you are a Carbonist. We have yet to explore 1% of %1 of our Galaxy. There are wonders beyond your dreams and you are to tell me that you will never call something alive b/c it does not have cells.
This is what is necessary for life
growth, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. How can you deny life according to this definition?
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
Are you telling me you are a Carbonist. We have yet to explore 1% of %1 of our Galaxy. There are wonders beyond your dreams and you are to tell me that you will never call something alive b/c it does not have cells.
This is what is necessary for life
growth, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally. How can you deny life according to this definition?

Life: Made up of cells, growth, reproduction, adaptation, homeostasis, energy use, evolution. If it does not exhibit all of these things it is not alive. Even if they exhibit some of these things, they are not alive unless they exhibit all of them. Unless the definition of life changes, I'm not going to consider anything that does not exhibit all of those things as alive. Call me when the definition changes. In the meantime, this discussion is off-topic and really ridiculous.
 

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
Other then cells it has all of the other ability. (And if you consider nanobots = cells then it has those as well)
However that is neither here nor there. Can a computer be a person and not be alive. Also babys can not reproduce till they get older so they are not alive? Also a fetus can not adapt to environment. So according to you a fetus is not alive. A computer fills more of the necessitys to life then a fetus does
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
Other then cells it has all of the other ability. (And if you consider nanobots = cells then it has those as well)
However that is neither here nor there. Can a computer be a person and not be alive. Also babys can not reproduce till they get older so they are not alive? Also a fetus can not adapt to environment. So according to you a fetus is not alive. A computer fills more of the necessitys to life then a fetus does

Nanobots are not cells. They are nanobots. Also, you're taking reproduction too literally. When it's fully developed, that human will be able to reproduce. As a species, we are able to reproduce. Computers cannot reproduce, they do not grow, they are not made of cells, they do not evolve. Humans as a species exhibit all of the characteristics of life. Computers do not. Also, I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that it was understood that a "person" is a human and not something of another species to begin with. A dog is not a "person." A dolphin is not a "person."
 

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
Computers can grow by adding things to themselves, and they can build new computers so they can reproduce. Also nanobots are machines that move molecular products to build themselves up and change there environment to better survive. This is the same for organic and metal nanobots. How is a cell not a nanobot?

Even so you avoid the question of why must a being be alive to person. A person can not only be humans in the future when humanity discovers it is not alone
 

Pesky Persian

Caffeine Queen
Computers can grow by adding things to themselves, and they can build new computers so they can reproduce. Also nanobots are machines that move molecular products to build themselves up and change there environment to better survive. This is the same for organic and metal nanobots. How is a cell not a nanobot?

Even so you avoid the question of why must a being be alive to person. A person can not only be humans in the future when humanity discovers it is not alone

If you'd like to have a debate about whether or not computers are "alive," I suggest you make your own debate on that subject because it has nothing to do with this one. Although, I will say you have a fundamental misunderstanding of reproduction and growth.

Humanity hasn't discovered intelligent life outside of earth right now so that's a moot point.
 

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
If you'd like to have a debate about whether or not computers are "alive," I suggest you make your own debate on that subject because it has nothing to do with this one. Although, I will say you have a fundamental misunderstanding of reproduction and growth.

Humanity hasn't discovered intelligent life outside of earth right now so that's a moot point.

I have asked the mod if I can. However my point is that self aware creatures are the ones who can be murdered. Non aware creatures can be killed without it being murder.
 

Liberty Defender

Well-Known Member
I think the pro-abortion position is a selfish position. They dehumanize the child within them to justify killing the child under the guise of controlling their own body, with wanton disregard of the child's body.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I think the pro-life position is a dishonest position. They use emotional words like "child" and "baby" trying to convince people that it's murder when it is in fact not a child or baby. It is a zygote/fetus.
 

ebilly99

Americanreigon champ
I think the pro-abortion position is a selfish position. They dehumanize the child within them to justify killing the child under the guise of controlling their own body, with wanton disregard of the child's body.

That's why pro Chose is the best option, It leaves options open for the people
 
Starfish have nervous systems, and in a way different from humans: A brain.

Your arguments are based on misconceptions.

Sponges do not have nervous, digestive or circulatory systems. Plants have no nervous systems. Bacteria have no nervous systems. Are they alive? Yes. Are they unique, individual life forms distinct from their mothers? Yes. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of organisms that have no nervous system, no bones, no ears, no eyes, no heart, that are universally accepted to be both alive, and unique from their mothers. This is not a misconception. It is a fact.

I will ask you the question for probably the fifth time now. If all of those brainless, heartless, boneless organisms are universally accepted to be living, unique, and separate from their mothers, why do you consider a human zygote to not be a unique, living human (species) separate from its mother? If a fertilized seed is universally accepted to be a unique, living organism (of the species corresponding to its DNA) separate from its mother, why isn't a human zygote?

Will you please directly answer the question?
 

Liberty Defender

Well-Known Member
I think the pro-life position is a dishonest position. They use emotional words like "child" and "baby" trying to convince people that it's murder when it is in fact not a child or baby. It is a zygote/fetus.

Maybe in the early stages, but once it reaches the point where it could possibly survive outside the womb, that goes out the door.
 

Bill Nye the Sneasel Guy

Well-Known Member
Those of you that support pro life, I wish to ask. What affect does my wife having an abortion have on your everyday life? What affect does your decision to have a baby have on my everyday life? If you answer none. Then you see why I say I support pro choice.

I say it doesn't have an affect on my life, but that doesn't mean I see eye-to-eye with the pro-choice folks. If your baby had been kicking around for a day and you decided to kill him with your hammer, well, that wouldn't change my life either... yet it's the killing that's wrong, not how it affects others.

To that extent neither does the government. They stick their nose into our live to much as it is. Do you really want someone getting laws passes to dictate what you can eat, watch, wear & think? I know it is a slippery slop argument, but think about how you feel about each of those topics I mentioned, now how do you feel about someone taking those freedoms away?

The thing is, I do think the government has the right to restrict other people's freedom to kill others. The government has to provide some sort of order to life and provide protections to its citizens, even if some of those protections come at the expense of some freedoms.

I call straw man! We're not talking about late-term abortions.

This is a topic on abortion in general, is it not? If so, how is it an invalid topic? Late-term abortions are unfortunately still available in many different areas.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
I like how your OP can manage to be so admirably long and complex yet still flat and one-sided. No distinction between genetic human and functional human? What does death mean to a fetus? There are no relevant distinctions between getting an abortion and stabbing someone in cold blood? These are like lies by omission, pro-life or pro-choice. Stepping on an acorn is not felling the mighty oak, and there is more than one approach to this matter.

Right of the bat I hate abortion. Allowing other people to have the choice is another matter that tests my repulsion toward it. I hate hurting a fly, and within the context of the pro-life argument, indeed I don't want to promote abortion. But some instinct in me represents the idea where people could be permitted to get abortions are somehow different, and I don't think that's irrelevant or murderous, nor does it particularly cause a wave of immorality.

I really want to pitch in more than that, but I am swamped with finals this weekend and probably shouldn't be posting at all.
 

Liberty Defender

Well-Known Member
I like how your OP can manage to be so admirably long and complex yet still flat and one-sided. No distinction between genetic human and functional human? What does death mean to a fetus? There are no relevant distinctions between getting an abortion and stabbing someone in cold blood? These are like lies by omission, pro-life or pro-choice. Stepping on an acorn is not felling the mighty oak, and there is more than one approach to this matter.

Right of the bat I hate abortion. Allowing other people to have the choice is another matter that tests my repulsion toward it. I hate hurting a fly, and within the context of the pro-life argument, indeed I don't want to promote abortion. But some instinct in me represents the idea where people could be permitted to get abortions are somehow different, and I don't think that's irrelevant or murderous, nor does it particularly cause a wave of immorality.

I really want to pitch in more than that, but I am swamped with finals this weekend and probably shouldn't be posting at all.

Finals in March? Unusual
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top