By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?

Um, just a repeat:

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR, MAKE ANOTHER THREAD TO DO IT IN. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT.

sorry for shouting.



Witty signature here...

Wii: 14 million by January  I sold myself short

360: 13 million by January I sold microsoft short, but not as bad as Nintendo.

PS3: 6 million by January. If it approaches 8 mil i'll eat crow  Mnn Crow is yummy.

With these results, I've determined that I suck at long term predictions, and will not long term predict anything ever again. Thus spaketh Crono.

Around the Network
elprincipe said:
Rath said:
@Crono.

Not everything is fucking defined alright? No there is not always such a thing as right or wrong. Is killing an orphan to save a hundred others right? Is sacrificing an army of thousands to save a nation right? Not everything is in a clear section of 'correct' or 'incorrect' just like not everything is 'frog' or 'tadpole' or like everything is 'fetus' or 'person'. Many things are progressive, not sudden. A tadpole slowly changes into a frog just like a fetus slowly changes into a human, somewhere along the line you can say 'alright lets stop doing abortions here' but thats not saying that what you are refusing to abort is completely human, merely human enough.
You cannot say that a fetus at conception is a human because it clearly isn't. It in no way whatsoever resembles a person. It cannot think, move, breathe, eat, it cannot do anything. In the same way you cannot say that a baby 9 months into a pregnancy isn't as it so clearly is, it has the ability to eat breathe think move.

You are treating humanity as something which comes suddenly and as such the only logical points are at either end but humanity isn't, thats where you are going so badly wrong.

Is someone with brain damage not a person? They cannot think.

Is someone who is paralyzed not a person? They cannot move.

Is someone who must be fed intravenously not a person? They cannot eat.

Why do these things define humanity?

A person which is brain dead and paralyzed is not a person. They are a corpse to be honest. 

 



Daddo Splat, if you want anyone to read your posts I recommend you get treatment for Single Giant Text-Block Syndrome. And also not talk about the Iraq occupation too much in a thread about abortion.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

superchunk said:
Kasz216 said:
superchunk said:
For those of you who say a person is not alive until they are physically born. That is just ignorant. A doctor can get a fetus to react to stimulus in as little as a few weeks after conception. That alone proves the fetus is alive. It is breathing in the liquids around it, eating, excrementing, reacting, and thinking. All signs of life.

 

See my above post about the brain dead man. You are the one who is ignorant on that point. It isn't reacting to anything. It's a reflex. The same kind of reflex a brain dead person's body reacts to. It takes over two months for a Fetus to actually has any sort of readable brain activity. Up till then it's about as alive a house plant. Alive but not human or even animal level of alive.

Actually we are not that different in opinion. When a said a few weeks, I mean like 4-6 or so. I will have to search for the report I was paraphrasing. It said that doctors could get recognizable reactions and brain activity during this time. You state 2 months I state 4 or 6 weeks. Essentially the same thing. What's a week or two anyways. We know that the brain begins development by week 3. So I would think that by week 5 it is functioning. There are many types of organisms on this planet that only react to stimilus, yet by definition they are alive. So, to would this 6 week old fetus meet that same criteria.

Source on Fetal brain

My point was more along the lines that life does not begin at birth, but very early on in the development of the fetus.

 

4 or 6 weeks is not enough.  Those "reconizable reactions" are reflexes in which people relate human reaction to.  The brain is physically there.  However nothing happens until the 12th week. (well nothing different then a  braindead person.)

The link you gave me doesn't dispute this in anyway way.  A brain dead person also reacts to stimulus.  What's the difference?

12 Weeks is when you can detect the actual brain activity, nothing in your source disputes anything i've said.



Crono said:
"On another note, yes, the viability argument means that many prematurely born infants are not yet "human" at birth. You act as if this disproves the viability argument. It does not."

So, according to that logic, it'd be ok to terminate a pre-mature baby, as long as it required medical attention to stay alive. Nice.

One, you don't get the viability arguement.
 
Two, I'm pretty sure you can. After all it *almost* happened to me. I was born prematurely. The doctos came in and told my parents that there was a very small chance and i'm fairly certain my parents were given the choice to continue or not with said operations that I would need to survive and they did. In fact my grandma once told me the doctor prepaired my grandma to take care of my parents by basically telling her that the operations they were performing were basically just "practice".
 
Heck if the parents are of a religion that doesn't allow blood transfusions or many other things, they can legally refuse treatement to my knoledge.  I think a parent can have their child taken off a breather at anytime.  Even a premature one. 


Around the Network
elprincipe said:
Rath said:
@Crono.

Not everything is fucking defined alright? No there is not always such a thing as right or wrong. Is killing an orphan to save a hundred others right? Is sacrificing an army of thousands to save a nation right? Not everything is in a clear section of 'correct' or 'incorrect' just like not everything is 'frog' or 'tadpole' or like everything is 'fetus' or 'person'. Many things are progressive, not sudden. A tadpole slowly changes into a frog just like a fetus slowly changes into a human, somewhere along the line you can say 'alright lets stop doing abortions here' but thats not saying that what you are refusing to abort is completely human, merely human enough.
You cannot say that a fetus at conception is a human because it clearly isn't. It in no way whatsoever resembles a person. It cannot think, move, breathe, eat, it cannot do anything. In the same way you cannot say that a baby 9 months into a pregnancy isn't as it so clearly is, it has the ability to eat breathe think move.

You are treating humanity as something which comes suddenly and as such the only logical points are at either end but humanity isn't, thats where you are going so badly wrong.

Is someone with brain damage not a person? They cannot think.

Is someone who is paralyzed not a person? They cannot move.

Is someone who must be fed intravenously not a person? They cannot eat.

Why do these things define humanity?


 If they can't think at all?  Well no then they arn't a person.  They are a brain dead human being.  Braindead people get killed all the time.  They are usually kept alive first so they can be harvested for organs first. 



It's always the same with the "pro-life" (I can't believe they call themelf that, huh?) threads. There is always some fanatic lunatic posting half the posts in the thread, preaching about the swell joys of "pro-life". I think everyone can see who that lunatic is in this thread.

But I guess saying the same stupid thing over and over makes you feel you have the right to get in other peoples very personal business.



Stillwell, if you don't want to join in the debate just get off the post.

Its annoying having you around insulting people for their opinions.



pro life and neutral when it is in the context of rape



Crono said:

Final Fan, lets go back to this:

"No, the only logical times to define whether a fetus is "human" is at conception or at the moment of birth. Since almost nobody thinks aborting a 9 month fetus is acceptable, the only other logical option is conception. Anything in between is impossible to logically "prove" humanity."

There are plenty of developmental stages during pregnancy. My whole point with this statement is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to scientifically prove at what point a concept such as "humanity" is reached. We can't even define humanity in this discussion in a way that everyone (or even a simple majority) can agree on. This is more a philosophical argument than a scientific one.

HOWEVER, what I said was, since we can't even agree on what the definition of "humanity" is, then its scientifically impossible to determine at what stage in development humanity is reached. Knowing this to be true, then there are only 2 logical time that we can define humanity, at the moment of birth or at the moment of conception.

Anything in between will never be agreed on. Its not black/white, right/wrong at this point. Its pure reason. If you MUST define when a fetus is human, these 2 points in development are the only ones that make logical sense.

Though, I might entertain a compromise from conception to implantation, since eggs fail to implant frequently, and we don't really consider this a lost child.

"Just because we may not be able to pin down exactly when it happens doesn't mean we can't narrow it down at all. If the job of narrowing it down isn't "easy" enough for you, well, there are smarter and more knowledgeable people than you (or me) thinking about the problem"

I would agree with this, if we had CLEAR criteria by which we measure humanity. But we don't, and we never will without someone arbitrarily saying "this is what humanity is." But going by that is no better than going by what an ancient book says.

And please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. I know this is hot topic, but I'm trying to keep things in the realm of reason here. I apologize if it seemed I made a personal attack first (I think my monster comment may have been construed this way), but this was not my intent.

EDIT: Yes, I know it was metalcube who said that. Would you rather I double posted a response to avoid confusion? It was more a comment on relativism, than the argument at hand.

Where we fundamentally disagree is that I believe it clearly IS possible to find at least a range of development after which we can say, "yep, human" and before which we can say, "nope, not yet". Example: A five-week-old embryo looks like this:

That's probably indistinguishable from any mammal and a lot of fishes except at the genetic level. Why is that human except as far as what it will potentially become?

It seems clear to me that at some point after that and before this:

it becomes human. I would be extremely surprised if we ever pin it down to a single moment in time, but we can get it down to a couple of weeks or a few weeks. At the start of those weeks it is no longer OK to abort because, better safe than sorry right? At the same time "better safe than sorry" doesn't mean you need to wear a helmet 24/7 so don't even think about saying "well push it back to conception because we're not sure whether it's at 3 or 4 months".

Though, I might entertain a compromise from conception to implantation, since eggs fail to implant frequently, and we don't really consider this a lost child.

See my discussion with elprincipe. What does the survival rate of the fertilized eggs have to do with anything? Back in the middle ages when infant mortality rates were just ridiculous would it be OK to have abortion? (I seem to recall that way back when they didn't even name infants in many cultures until a certain age, presumably because so many died soon after birth. I could be wrong though.) Why is it human right after implantation and not before? How can you compromise if you believe that human life begins at conception?

I'm glad we were able (thanks to you) to bring our exchange back down to a calm debate.

Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!