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

Your views on abortion

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Shiny hunter Reece, Dec 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tim the turtle

    Tim the turtle Happy Mudkip

    I do this all the time. Yes.

    Ok, first of all, I was still arguing devils advocate there anyway because that statement was about personhood being a social thing. So yeah, I didn't have a good argument but I don't need one because I don't actually believe that anyway.

    Second of all, you're arguing against several well established philosophers and their definition of person when you make statements such as "human beings who don't display the rational and empathic qualities (because of external constraints) are still persons." Mr. Kettle, you're friend Mr. Pot is on the phone. He says you're black.

    If the definition of life is an organimsm within which reproduction is active then an organism without the capability of reproduction is not alive. It's that simple.

    I'm not spouting nonsense at all. If reproduction is a necessary condition for life then any object which cannot reproduce is not alive. That is basic logic. However, if we downgrade reproduction to merely a sufficient condition, things make a lot more sense with the world around us. It would mean that every object that could reproduce would be counted as alive and all those creatures that cannot reproduce could still be alive by some other condition of lifehood. This makes perfect sense.

    I find in many cases where definitions such as this mention reproduction they actually refer to the ability of a creatures cells themselves to reproduce. Certainly any object lacking that ability would very much be dead.

    Yes, they do.

    Premise 1: An object is alive if and only if it has the ability to reproduce.
    Premise 2: Mules, certain members of other species and certain age groups of species, do not have the ability reproduce.
    Conclusion: Mules, certain members of other species and certain age groups of species are not alive.

    That is deductively valid, shame it's not sound thanks to premise 1 being an incorrect definition of life. Unless you do agree with that definition of life, in which case, uhm, it is deductively sound and therefore mules are not alive.

    'Cause that logic isn't circular at all...
    "Hey guys, all living things have to be able to reproduce."
    "Ok, so what about mules and young children and stuff? Surely they're alive too."
    "Well they must be able to reproduce because they are alive. Oh shi-"

    No, most human creatures are two armed. The presence of one armed humans proves that the statement "humans are two armed creatures" is misleading at best, outright false at worst.

    Humans are considered two eyed creatures. But consideration is a subjective thing. What you are basically saying here, by use of the word considered, is that most people, when they think of a human, think of a two-eyed creature. That is obviously going to be the case simply because most humans do have two-eyes. but that doesn't mean anything. It's ludicrous to consider a human with eight eyes a two eyed creature. You could still consider them a human, so long as the definition of human has nothing against abberrant eye-numbers (and it doesn't as far as I'm aware). If the definition of human did have such a clause, then this eight eyed creature would, by definition, not be human.

    I think this is pretty obvious really. I don't. If they could, then I wouldn't have a problem with them now would I? I never asked them to, I simply said they can't. Anyways I don't really care about the interraction part of this debate anymore, as I already said in my last post.

    Uh, yeah.

    This is simply fantasy logic. The philosophical definitions of life I have provided clearly states that a person is a rational, self-aware being. It has nothing to do with species. If a being is not a rational, self-aware one, then it is not a person by definition. The fact that the cause of their non-personhood is due to external constraints doesn't matter. At all. It simply has no bearing on anything.

    Oh and just food for though TFP, are you aware that without realising it you already agreed with me that only rational, self-aware beings are counted as persons? It's in the post you made before your last one. See if you can find it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2010
  2. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    I'd argue on why it should be legal. I don't see what the problem is.. in fact, that's pretty much what I've done.

    You guys need to understand that I'm not using the law for justification. I am saying that questioning me what 'human' means is ignoring the fact that it is you who has a problem with the things as they are. I am not saying law = truth. I am saying I simply agree with what it says and I want to hear why you oppose <x> law.

    None of them are even close to an argument being anywhere near 'countered'.

    First, I never said it was nonliving. Please point out where I did.

    Also I think I misunderstood your original point; I thought you were going to use science to prove 'when life begins'.

    .. Which you still don't ultimately know when it begins and you most certainly can't use science. You can use a method to determine when to cut abortion off, but you'll be damned to think it can figure out 'when life begins'.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2010
  3. White Wizard

    White Wizard Hundred acre Woods

    im on both sides
     
  4. natie

    natie Mr. F

    Which means you just haven't thought about it yet, I presume?
     
  5. Bastian

    Bastian Member

    I am completely against abortion. In my mind, life starts at fertilization, because that embryo has the potential to grow just like any baby. Some argue that life hasn't started until after the baby is born, or the heart starts beating, etc. The truth is that babies aren't fully developed when they are born, but we don't kill them because of it. I may not know exactly when life starts, but nobody really does. So why take the gamble and do something you'll regret?
     
  6. natie

    natie Mr. F

    Life starts the moment a cell gets created.

    But seriously, you can't call a chunk of cells mashed together 'human'. I honestly can't see why you guys are so against abortion. Heck, it even happens naturally (PMS, anyone?), although that is earlier on than when abortions happen.

    Also, rape. Read the damn topic before mentioning subjects that have been brought up countless times and always bashed down again.
     
  7. Soiherdyouliekme

    Soiherdyouliekme Mud. Kip.

    So apparently it's wrong to have an abortion because of the negative effects it has on the baby (of course), but once the baby is out of the womb we should give tax cuts to the rich and screw the lower class and their babies because it's their own damn fault they're poor.

    In a perfect world where condoms don't break, birth control works all the time for everyone and rapists don't exist, abortion wouldn't have to happen. But that's far from the case, and keeping a woman's body prisoner for 9 months and their financial situation in tatters for god knows how long, along with the effects it has on the baby (y'know, the thing that you're trying to protect in the first case), is not the solution.
     
  8. Deku_Link

    Deku_Link ,,|,,

    I'd love it if religious right-wingers started supporting the tax hikes we'd need to provide education for the "millions of american citizens" they believe should otherwise be born, among other expenses.

    But abortion arguments are all about blaming everyone but yourself and not providing any answers. :(

    That chunk of cells mashed together is human. Two human gametes cannot form an organism that is not human. The fetus is unquestionably human, that's basic biology.

    But it doesn't matter anyway, because "abortion is wrong because the fetus is human" is a ****ing shitty argument in the first place. The skin cells you shed every day are human too, does that make you a murderer? Killing something that's human is almost meaningless without the distinction of personhood, and even that's a gray area (because even if a fetus was legally considered a person, it doesn't automatically have the inalienable right to life -- the fetus would need special rights to acquire permission to someone else's bodily resources against their consent when no person has that right to begin with).

    The point of debating abortion is not to disqualify the fetus as a human organism, but to get anti-abortionists to demonstrate why fetuses deserve special rights. Debating fetal personhood and species distinction is a whole lot of throwing weight around and is completely pointless anyway.

    It's interesting that you bring up fertilization as the distinguishing event, and not implantation. A fertilized embryo has no guarantee of implanting. Without implantation, there is no pregnancy, and many fertilized embryos never make it past that stage -- they are naturally expelled (I won't say "miscarried" because you can't miscarry when you aren't pregnant) from the uterus without the woman ever knowing they were there to begin with.

    Where are the candlelight vigils and memorial services for those poor embryos that never implanted? Was the mother committing manslaughter by accidentally not carrying a fertilized embryo to term? Why is it always about abortion and conception, but there's no mention of conception that does not lead to pregnancy?
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2010
  9. poke poke

    poke poke hello

    my hand analogy; ive posted this three times (i think) on this board and it has not yet been disputed yet:

     
  10. ShinySandshrew

    ShinySandshrew †God Follower†

    What is the difference between your hand and a fetus? A brain? A heart? Various other organs that are used for keeping the fetus alive after it leaves the womb?

    And do you have any data to back-up the claim that a fetus cannot show responses to various stimuli? I think mothers would disagree! Have you heard your aunt say "Put your hand right here! You can feel the baby kick!" or something along those lines?

    And about the brain, let me quote a Wikipedia article.

    "The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 9th week. At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams. The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size. Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen. The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation.

    Fetuses are not capable of feeling pain at the beginning of the fetal stage, and may not be able to feel pain until the third trimester. At this point in development, uncontrolled movements and twitches occur as muscles, the brain and pathways begin to develop." (Source)

    Vegetable? I think not!


    Third trimester? Then I guess you've never heard of partial-birth abortion!
     
  11. natie

    natie Mr. F

    Of course it is human, but what I meant was that you can't call it a human person (yet).
     
  12. GastlyMan

    GastlyMan Ghost Type Trainer

    Although...does it even matter if it's human or not? The fact is that it's going to be human, or at least that's what's supposed to happen, and it has a right to life too...

    ...just my two cents.
     
  13. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    Will =/= is. Whoops.

    What are the significance of these organs to the current capacity of the fetus? It barely has a brain and its heart doesn't beat until late. They are just merely cells that do their job; the same way a hand does. The hand has blood vessels that pump. OMG IT'S ALIVE AND A FETUS ISN'T.

    Newsflash: anything alive responds to stimuli.

    1) 'minimal operation'. Looks like you just saw the word brain and went from there. Nice reading comprehension, but a vegetable IS a person with a brain at the most minimal state.

    2) Is anybody really debating abortion for third trimester? Aren't abortion of that stature rare anyway?
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2010
  14. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    Everyone else already responded to this, so...

    The vast majority of all abortions happen in the first trimester. Very few are in the third, and even then it's almost always because of health complications in the mother that prevent her from giving birth. I'm willing to bet even you'd be okay with abortion if giving birth would kill the mother.
     
  15. ShinySandshrew

    ShinySandshrew †God Follower†

    Yet a caterpillar has a very small brain and it is clearly alive. The extent that each thing works is not the point. You cannont claim that a fetus is just like a hand because (and I know you all won't like this) it will turn into something more. Whereas a hand will never be anything more than a hand. It doesn't matter when you remove it from your body, it will never be anything more than a hand. Those organs are sign that the fetus is a not fully developed being, not just a part of the body.


    But a hand only responds to stimuli if it is attatched to a brain. Whereas a fetus is not linked to the mother's brain. The mother cannot flex her fetus or anything like that.


    And I quote
    And again, I quote "The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 9th week. At the start of the fetal stage, the fetus is typically about 30 mm (1.2 inches) in length from crown to rump, and weighs about 8 grams. The head makes up nearly half of the fetus' size. Breathing-like movement of the fetus is necessary for stimulation of lung development, rather than for obtaining oxygen. The heart, hands, feet, brain and other organs are present, but are only at the beginning of development and have minimal operation." (Source)

    Actually, a person in a persistent vegatative state may or may not respond to stimuli. Some do, some don't. But the difference is that a vegetative state is caused by negative influences on the brain whereas a fetus' brain activity is cause by not having yet progressed to a stage where it can use its brain in a more complex manner.

    And I quote
    I was talking about the fact that they do happen, not the reason. Your statement disproved what that guy said.
     
  16. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    Okay then, talk about a child's hand then.

    You can keep tossing the will = is argument all you want, but it won't mean anything in a present sense. It just isn't the same thing no matter how many times you repeat it. In the present state, they are analogous.

    And a fetus would only respond if it was attached to the mother.

    Tell me a difference that matters; not give excuses on WHY it's the same (which is pretty much what you just did). Although I'm not the guy making the vegetable/fetus comparison originally.. but I just threw my 2 cents in.

    Btw, 'response to stimuli' isn't just a hand jumping in the air. Response to stimuli is also things that go on in your body that we can't visibly see.

    Also, repeating your quote doesn't tell me anything new. What is the significance of a brain and a heart that minimally operates? You can't just randomly attach sentimental feelings to random organs of your choosing. What if I did with hands?
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2010
  17. Megaton666

    Megaton666 Swampert Trainer

    im tired of people here claiming that a bunch of cells put together is human. it's not. just because it has human DNA doesn't make it human. you know what else has human DNA? your organs, but I don't see you going around and protesting surgical science because it supports the removal of organs when neccesary.
     
  18. Deku_Link

    Deku_Link ,,|,,

    potential is more important than current state of being!


    i'm a potential senior citizen, and the government already pays my pension!
     
  19. xsedr

    xsedr The Moral Aethiest

    100% against it. To kill a completely defenceless, innocent child is terrible. Don't think i'm religious on this point, I don't believe in the sky fairy. I don't like watching the innocent die. Plus you're cutting short a future. Who knows what the child would have done in life, how they could have aided society.
     
  20. Deku_Link

    Deku_Link ,,|,,

    a fetus is innocent in the same way that a rock is innocent


    the innocence is unquestionable, but it's also meaningless
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page