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

Forums - General Discussion - Gallup: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

vlad321 on 18 May 2009
appolose said:
vlad321 said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:

 

DNA is a blueprint, nothing more. It's like saying that 2 buildings are different when all they have laid down is the ditch for the foundations. However at that point they are obviosuly different because the blueprint is different? I call bullshit on that.

Furthermore the fetus is a parasite, and correct me if I'm arong but a normal human isn't. A human doesn't depend on anyone else to live and be well. They depend on food and water and that's it. Before they are sustainable outside the mother the fetus is not human, it's a parasite.

Since you are so much for its rights, does that mean that you will oulaw pregnant drinking? Or smoking? Or eating unhealthily? Or doing heavy exercise? Or anything that will cause her to miscarry or damage the fetus? How the fuck is that not controlling one's body? You just basically made her a slave to that fetus, legally. F that.

If she wants that parasite out of her she should be able to remove it, if you want to save it, go ahead and find a way to keep it alive and going, as long as it's no longer in her. I don't care how you do it, implant in another mother, machines, or not at all.

You asked for a difference, and there is a massive genetic difference.  And there is a considerable amount of difference between a dog and a human than there is between two buildings.

Parasites and humans aren't mutually exclusive.  You can be a parasite and be human at the same time (blood transfusion, for example).  Even if that weren't the case, so what?

I would disallow anything that would kill or harm the fetus, of course, just as I would for disallow an actions committed by one person that would kill or harm another.  If that's what you mean by controlling the body, then what's the problem?  Should we allow people to go running around spraying bullets into buildings because we would be "controlling their bodies" otherwise?  Are they slaves to everyone else because that can't fulfill that particular whim?

 

 

 

See, now you are saying that if there's a parasite in you we get to control your body, simply put. I'm just purely looking at it from an Act Utilitarianism point of view. Meaning which will produce the greatest happiness in the most people. While the abortion won't necessarily cause happiness to the woman it certainly would prevent grief. On the other hand you have something that doesn't even feel ANYTHING, muchless happiness. Here you are telling me that the government should control just about every action of a woman when she is pregnant for some stupid parasite that won't even feel it if it got hit with a hammer in the zygote.

What does feeling have to do with living?  What it be fine if I was shot in the head as long as I felt no pain during the event?  I do not understand this objection: ''It'll make the mother happy!" It will also make the baby dead.  Furthermore, if some action that you could that would make you happy (or not sad), and would also harm or kill someone else, why shouldn't you be stopped (is this what you meant by "controlling her body" this whole time?  I thought you were referring to the fetus as "her body")?

 

No by her body I mean the mother's. Also the baby isn't conscious, feeling, or anything that even makes something even remotely human. It's a clump of cells which also happens to be a parasite. As I said earlier, if you wanna save the fetus good for you, I do too. However get it out of the mother if she wants it out and then save the little parasite in any way you want to.

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
appolose on 18 May 2009
vlad321 said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:

 

See, now you are saying that if there's a parasite in you we get to control your body, simply put. I'm just purely looking at it from an Act Utilitarianism point of view. Meaning which will produce the greatest happiness in the most people. While the abortion won't necessarily cause happiness to the woman it certainly would prevent grief. On the other hand you have something that doesn't even feel ANYTHING, muchless happiness. Here you are telling me that the government should control just about every action of a woman when she is pregnant for some stupid parasite that won't even feel it if it got hit with a hammer in the zygote.

What does feeling have to do with living?  What it be fine if I was shot in the head as long as I felt no pain during the event?  I do not understand this objection: ''It'll make the mother happy!" It will also make the baby dead.  Furthermore, if some action that you could that would make you happy (or not sad), and would also harm or kill someone else, why shouldn't you be stopped (is this what you meant by "controlling her body" this whole time?  I thought you were referring to the fetus as "her body")?

 

No by her body I mean the mother's. Also the baby isn't conscious, feeling, or anything that even makes something even remotely human. It's a clump of cells which also happens to be a parasite. As I said earlier, if you wanna save the fetus good for you, I do too. However get it out of the mother if she wants it out and then save the little parasite in any way you want to.

 

I thought we were discussing this situation within the premise that it was a human ("Furthermore, if some action that you could that would make you happy (or not sad), and would also harm or kill someone else, why shouldn't you be stopped"? ).  Given that, you would agree with what I said, right?  And the reasons you gave for it not being human have already been given, so I think were just going in circles on that point.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Rath on 18 May 2009
luinil said:

And this is where the real clash of Pro-life and Pro-Choice lies. When do we give the baby the right to life. The Pro-Life group believes it starts at Day 0. Several of the reasons they believe that are founded in religion, to be sure, but there are non-religious Pro-Lifers as well.
The Pro-Choice group believes it starts sometime after Day 0. They don't all agree on when life starts (nor do the "self-titled" Pro-Lifers either I might add), but they believe that up until that point, it should be the choice of the woman to abort.

The reason the clash is so vehement, lies in the fact that we are talking about life and the ending of life, and ostensibly what many consider murder. The view that life begins at Day 0 would tend to see abortion as murder and such a heinous crime, because the baby has no chance to defend itself, and can make no choices about it's own future. Therefore the people who can do something should.

The question I must ask is this, do you know for 100% certain that the baby doesn't do what you think beforehand, or maybe your definition of when life begins is based on faulty assumptions? Could you be wrong? What if life really does begin at Day 0?

My take on those questions is this, Where else can we deem it the creation of life, and therefore a human? imho there is no other option. Take it for what you will.

Actually my position grants protection before any of the signs of being a person are truly there. Twenty six weeks is when the thalamus starts to develop, this is almost certainly required to feel pain.

Other more complex things like emotions and thoughts do not come until later, self awareness doesn't come until some months after birth.

So given that I have taken the earliest possible sign of the first of many things that in my opinion constitute a person I am confident beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus isn't a person beforehand.



SamuelRSmith on 19 May 2009

Abortion should be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth. Parents really don't know whether they can cope up until they've actually experienced it first hand.



ManusJustus on 19 May 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
Abortion should be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth. Parents really don't know whether they can cope up until they've actually experienced it first hand.

I would put it before that.

We should, and most do, associate life with the brain.  Its not considered murder to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead, nor are other body parts (leg, arm, stomach, heart) considered part of life when since they can be removed or replaced.  Thus, I think it makes sense to say that a baby is alive sometime after its brain develops.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 19 May 2009
Rath said:
luinil said:

And this is where the real clash of Pro-life and Pro-Choice lies. When do we give the baby the right to life. The Pro-Life group believes it starts at Day 0. Several of the reasons they believe that are founded in religion, to be sure, but there are non-religious Pro-Lifers as well.
The Pro-Choice group believes it starts sometime after Day 0. They don't all agree on when life starts (nor do the "self-titled" Pro-Lifers either I might add), but they believe that up until that point, it should be the choice of the woman to abort.

The reason the clash is so vehement, lies in the fact that we are talking about life and the ending of life, and ostensibly what many consider murder. The view that life begins at Day 0 would tend to see abortion as murder and such a heinous crime, because the baby has no chance to defend itself, and can make no choices about it's own future. Therefore the people who can do something should.

The question I must ask is this, do you know for 100% certain that the baby doesn't do what you think beforehand, or maybe your definition of when life begins is based on faulty assumptions? Could you be wrong? What if life really does begin at Day 0?

My take on those questions is this, Where else can we deem it the creation of life, and therefore a human? imho there is no other option. Take it for what you will.

Actually my position grants protection before any of the signs of being a person are truly there. Twenty six weeks is when the thalamus starts to develop, this is almost certainly required to feel pain.

Other more complex things like emotions and thoughts do not come until later, self awareness doesn't come until some months after birth.

So given that I have taken the earliest possible sign of the first of many things that in my opinion constitute a person I am confident beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus isn't a person beforehand.

But you do recognize that the fetus/embryo is alive and that abortion is therefore murder yes?  I mean murder of life, regardless of whether it would/should be classified as human.  That is what is taking place in an abortion...or would you disagree with that?

Our view on the issue is very similar (my cutoff is week 12 shortly after the end of the embryonic period), and I think we agree in basic premise if not specifics so I'm not attacking that.  But I do think pro-choice means accepting murder to facilitate free choice no matter how you view it. 

I only ask because many people who are pro-choice revolt at such a statement and I think it is an irrefutable fact of the matter that a living organism separate and distinct from the mother is being destroyed in the name of her choice. It after all has a unique set of DNA and could not be considered a part of the mother's body any more than a disease or parasite would.

PS - I consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life to be completely honest.  I think a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body even if it means harming another non-human life (ie parasites, diseases, gerbils (lol), etc...), but as soon as we talk about a human life I'm vehemently pro-life. Obviously the question is "when" does that change happen. To most this is a pro-choice view and so I take the label mostly for clarity.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Sqrl on 19 May 2009
ManusJustus said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Abortion should be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth. Parents really don't know whether they can cope up until they've actually experienced it first hand.

I would put it before that.

We should, and most do, associate life with the brain.  Its not considered murder to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead, nor are other body parts (leg, arm, stomach, heart) considered part of life when since they can be removed or replaced.  Thus, I think it makes sense to say that a baby is alive sometime after its brain develops.

 

So late teens?

Obviously this isn't what you meant but my point is that brain development is a very tricky thing because there is no clear point we can point to and say "its a human brain ....NOW!" because it continues to develop well after birth and into (legal) adult-hood.
To Each Man, Responsibility
luinil on 19 May 2009

Sqrl, I am curious about something, hopefully you have an answer for me. ^_^
Why does the brain start to function at week 12? Is there brain matter before then and then at ~12 weeks in it all of a sudden figures out how to work? Just wondering how that happens...



Luinil - Marisa (FE:SS). She's calm, collected, and really likes swords. (Courtesy of Words of Wisdom)
Tag: luinil - "Liberalism is a mental disorder." - Thanks fkusumot!
jv103 on 19 May 2009
Sqrl said:
Rath said:
luinil said:
 

And this is where the real clash of Pro-life and Pro-Choice lies. When do we give the baby the right to life. The Pro-Life group believes it starts at Day 0. Several of the reasons they believe that are founded in religion, to be sure, but there are non-religious Pro-Lifers as well.
The Pro-Choice group believes it starts sometime after Day 0. They don't all agree on when life starts (nor do the "self-titled" Pro-Lifers either I might add), but they believe that up until that point, it should be the choice of the woman to abort.

The reason the clash is so vehement, lies in the fact that we are talking about life and the ending of life, and ostensibly what many consider murder. The view that life begins at Day 0 would tend to see abortion as murder and such a heinous crime, because the baby has no chance to defend itself, and can make no choices about it's own future. Therefore the people who can do something should.

The question I must ask is this, do you know for 100% certain that the baby doesn't do what you think beforehand, or maybe your definition of when life begins is based on faulty assumptions? Could you be wrong? What if life really does begin at Day 0?

My take on those questions is this, Where else can we deem it the creation of life, and therefore a human? imho there is no other option. Take it for what you will.

Actually my position grants protection before any of the signs of being a person are truly there. Twenty six weeks is when the thalamus starts to develop, this is almost certainly required to feel pain.

Other more complex things like emotions and thoughts do not come until later, self awareness doesn't come until some months after birth.

So given that I have taken the earliest possible sign of the first of many things that in my opinion constitute a person I am confident beyond reasonable doubt that the fetus isn't a person beforehand.

But you do recognize that the fetus/embryo is alive and that abortion is therefore murder yes?  I mean murder of life, regardless of whether it would/should be classified as human.  That is what is taking place in an abortion...or would you disagree with that?

Our view on the issue is very similar (my cutoff is week 12 shortly after the end of the embryonic period), and I think we agree in basic premise if not specifics so I'm not attacking that.  But I do think pro-choice means accepting murder to facilitate free choice no matter how you view it. 

I only ask because many people who are pro-choice revolt at such a statement and I think it is an irrefutable fact of the matter that a living organism separate and distinct from the mother is being destroyed in the name of her choice. It after all has a unique set of DNA and could not be considered a part of the mother's body any more than a disease or parasite would.

PS - I consider myself both pro-choice and pro-life to be completely honest.  I think a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body even if it means harming another non-human life (ie parasites, diseases, gerbils (lol), etc...), but as soon as we talk about a human life I'm vehemently pro-life. Obviously the question is "when" does that change happen. To most this is a pro-choice view and so I take the label mostly for clarity.

You mention it is an embryo and then "Murder" at the same time. If you kill it in the embyronic stage then is it murder? I thought murder was a concept for humans killing humans (an Embyro is not human-but has the potential to be one maybe "premurder"?). OR are you conflating murder with any killing of life to bring the baggage along with the word? I murdered a pig last week for bacon. 

If one used the morning after pill and the egg was fertilized would that be murder?

 



ManusJustus on 19 May 2009
Sqrl said:
ManusJustus said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Abortion should be allowed up to 3 weeks after birth. Parents really don't know whether they can cope up until they've actually experienced it first hand.

I would put it before that.

We should, and most do, associate life with the brain.  Its not considered murder to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead, nor are other body parts (leg, arm, stomach, heart) considered part of life when since they can be removed or replaced.  Thus, I think it makes sense to say that a baby is alive sometime after its brain develops.

So late teens?

Obviously this isn't what you meant but my point is that brain development is a very tricky thing because there is no clear point we can point to and say "its a human brain ....NOW!" because it continues to develop well after birth and into (legal) adult-hood.

Late teens?  I'm confused.  Obviously, a new-born child is considered alive with a human brain, so killing a born baby would be murder.

I believe (I am no doctor or biologist) that the brain begins to develop several weeks after fertilization.  Your right, somewhere between several weeks and nine months a baby is considered to have a human brain, and say 'now' the baby has rights because a few cells that were specilizing in brain tissue started sending signals through the body, but this isn't exactly a 'clear' issue anyway.

In my opinion, a few months should be the limit for abortion, it gives plenty of time for a woman to find out she is pregnant and think about whatever decision she is going to make.