Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 232
  1. #121
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Namely, any part of development that occurs within the first month. The vast majority of women are pregnant for better than a month before they even realize they are pregnant. While I would love to argue against drugs like RU486 and other morning after pills, I would be content at this time to agree and compromise at the point when life is actually detected.
    Interesting point I had not considered. Though I can find no other place for a life to start but at conception, you are correct. For the first month'ish, there is no way to know if one is pregnant.

  2. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  3. #122
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    A prenatal human has pain receptors throughout the body at 8 weeks. It may be that pain is felt that early, or maybe not. At 20 weeks, the fetus reacts to pain the same as an adult human. But are you equating painless with moral? If someone kills a toddler, you'd rightly think that is murder, whether the child feels pain during the execution or not, right? So why is the presence or lack of pain a key to when a fetus may be killed? I don't understand.
    It's easier to think of a fetus as being a semi-human because we can avoid the fact that we're really extinguishing a real life. There may well come a time when we realize that even a fetus has some kind of consciousness that a more fully developed baby might have but that is not the case now. it's convenient to believe that a small bunch of cells doesn't have the awareness to call themselves human.

    As I point out - it is taken that the situation is similar to a brain dead adult: it is certainly alive and living but there is nothing recognizable as a conscious agent. There are no eyes to see, no mouth to speak, no limbs to sign with, no recognition detected, no intelligence found, and no emotions - it's just a precursor entity that one day would have such qualities but because they currently don't, then it's similar to stomping on a roach. Or in this case an unwanted pregnancy.

    I know you don't agree with this view of things but I hope you understand.

  4. Likes MindTrap028, evensaul liked this post
  5. #123
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's easier to think of a fetus as being a semi-human because we can avoid the fact that we're really extinguishing a real life. There may well come a time when we realize that even a fetus has some kind of consciousness that a more fully developed baby might have but that is not the case now. it's convenient to believe that a small bunch of cells doesn't have the awareness to call themselves human.

    As I point out - it is taken that the situation is similar to a brain dead adult: it is certainly alive and living but there is nothing recognizable as a conscious agent. There are no eyes to see, no mouth to speak, no limbs to sign with, no recognition detected, no intelligence found, and no emotions - it's just a precursor entity that one day would have such qualities but because they currently don't, then it's similar to stomping on a roach. Or in this case an unwanted pregnancy.

    I know you don't agree with this view of things but I hope you understand.
    I don't agree, but I do appreciate your candor. I have to observe, though, that your use of "we" instead of "I" seems to be an attempt to make yourself feel better by including others in how you think.

    The general sense I get from your posts is that you know abortion is evil, but you are unwilling to denounce the practice. Why is that? Why can't you accept what your gut and mind tell you, and state unequivocally that abortion is wrong?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  6. #124
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I don't agree, but I do appreciate your candor. I have to observe, though, that your use of "we" instead of "I" seems to be an attempt to make yourself feel better by including others in how you think.
    Well, the majority of the entire history of the world have opted for abortions as a solution to a potentially horrible life so I think it's a fair way to approach the problem. Certainly no one wants to go back to coat hangers so the only solution is to legalize it and therefore control it.

    The general sense I get from your posts is that you know abortion is evil, but you are unwilling to denounce the practice. Why is that? Why can't you accept what your gut and mind tell you, and state unequivocally that abortion is wrong?
    I've stated before: it's the lesser of two evils. Better that the pregnancy never have occurred at all but the only way to get there is real sex education, about the basics of life but also about safe sex and clean sexual gratification and the use of contraception. That should get rid of most of the 'accidental' births.

    For the rest, a child of rape or incest, is unfair but the bottom line is that life is a privilege and not a natural right. There isn't a single living entity in the history of the universe that can impose their own needs and desires onto people that don't want to give it. As a society, we have always deemed what constitutes a right to life and since we're the ones that have to deal with every birth then we do all have a say. And most people have decided that the mother should be allowed to make such a choice: this absolves us of the guilt and it places that decision on the woman that has to carry the baby for nine months and organize her life around raising such a child.

    This isn't an objective decision since there are no such things an objective moral statement. One just has to do what is best given what we know and hope that we can live with the results.

  7. #125
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    It's easier to think of a fetus as being a semi-human because we can avoid the fact that we're really extinguishing a real life. There may well come a time when we realize that even a fetus has some kind of consciousness that a more fully developed baby might have but that is not the case now. it's convenient to believe that a small bunch of cells doesn't have the awareness to call themselves human.

    As I point out - it is taken that the situation is similar to a brain dead adult: it is certainly alive and living but there is nothing recognizable as a conscious agent. There are no eyes to see, no mouth to speak, no limbs to sign with, no recognition detected, no intelligence found, and no emotions - it's just a precursor entity that one day would have such qualities but because they currently don't, then it's similar to stomping on a roach. Or in this case an unwanted pregnancy.

    I know you don't agree with this view of things but I hope you understand.
    I actually love when people put actual criteria to the abortion debate and to their position. It's clarity and we can then apply that to what we know from science.

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    https://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnan...ervous-system/
    Once the neural tube closes, at around week 6 or week 7 of pregnancy, it curves and bulges into three sections, commonly known as the forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain. Just to the rear of the hindbrain sits the part that will soon turn into your baby's spinal cord. Soon, these areas bubble into those five different regions of the brain that we're most familiar with: the cerebrum, cerebellum, brain stem, pituitary gland and the hypothalamus. Of course, all of these fetal brain areas need more time to be fully up and running!

    At the same time, special neural cells form and migrate throughout the embryo to form the very beginnings of nerves. Your baby's nervous system is made up of millions upon millions of neurons; each of these microscopic cells have itty-bitty branches coming off of them so that they can connect and communicate with each other. With this comes baby's first synapses, which essentially means baby's neurons can communicate and create early fetal movements...like curling into (you guessed it!) the fetal position.

    Other movements follow quickly, with your fetus wiggling his developing limbs at around 8 weeks. By the end of the first trimester, your baby-to-be has garnered quite a repertoire of motion, though you won't be able to feel any of it quite yet. And at about the same time as baby first wiggles his limbs, he begins to develop the sense of touch.
    So given the evidence, your stated position basically ends at about 6-8 weeks, and absolutely by the end of the first trimester.
    So I am happy to agree with you that Abortions after the first trimester are killing persons.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    There may well come a time when we realize that even a fetus has some kind of consciousness that a more fully developed baby might have but that is not the case now
    Actually, we do know, and have known from about 1988. .. Time to update this thinking on your position. (Not that you have to change your mind ... just that you need to be current with understanding of the unborn).
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/...ize-words-womb
    Be careful what you say around a pregnant woman. As a fetus grows inside a mother's belly, it can hear sounds from the outside world—and can understand them well enough to retain memories of them after birth, according to new research.
    To serve man.

  8. #126
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I actually love when people put actual criteria to the abortion debate and to their position. It's clarity and we can then apply that to what we know from science.


    So given the evidence, your stated position basically ends at about 6-8 weeks, and absolutely by the end of the first trimester.
    So I am happy to agree with you that Abortions after the first trimester are killing persons.


    Actually, we do know, and have known from about 1988. .. Time to update this thinking on your position. (Not that you have to change your mind ... just that you need to be current with understanding of the unborn).
    Thanks for the information but I still don't see anything more than than a precursor human without the qualities of consciousness, self-awareness, agency. Even looking at it, it's a little hard to distinguish it from other fetus at that age. Also, just Googling around a bit shows a human and animal fetus is similar. So I have a hard time feeling emotionally that it's really a human. Even then, I think 8 weeks is enough to know whether you're pregnant or not and do something about it. In the case of rape or incest, caught early enough, a simple Plan-B pill will fix the problem.

    The ultimate decision, and the best one, is the mother and the family should decide since they're the ones most affected. No one should force a decision either way and the government should support them and help them come to a conclusion they can live with. And don't think that those mothers aren't wracked with guilt if they decide to go with an abortion; nor that a mother won't end up regretting her decision to have the child if she doesn't, especially when that child requires constant care and practically ruins the mother's life.

    It's a tough problem and one shouldn't forget that whether it is legal or not, abortions will happen. So really the decision is whether to regulate it so that it can be safely done but not have it treated as a backup plan.

  9. #127
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you prefer not to interact with me...I accept that.
    Not at all. I welcome the discussion. I continue to answer every point you raise. I was hoping you would return fair play although I'm sure not to your satisfaction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Obviously, you want to continue in this mix-master form.

    I will not do that.
    You want to direct and stear the conversation to only your talking points. I'm not the only person to ask you the same question over and over again about human beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Please go back to my #108. I want to find out if we can reach agreement that you and I have different opinions about when “personhood” is acquired”…and that there seems to be no way for the question of “Which of us is correct” to be objectively resolved.
    I already told you that personhood begins at conception. Scientists have laid out the facts that a unique human life begins at conception. The substance view of humanity is evident to many over the property view of humanity. Substances remain the same kind of thing throughout its existence. A property can change into something else. A human being remains a human being throughout their existence starting at conception. Part of being human is being a personal being.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    If you agree with me...fine. If you disagree...if you think it can be objectively resolved...tell me how you think it can be (keeping in mind that some of the keenest minds on the planet have struggled with this issue and been unable to objectively resolve it.)
    Here goes!

    Scientific fact - human beings begin at conception.
    Fact - part of being a human being is being a personal being. You do not acquire it - it is always part of the human nature. Do you care to dispute this?
    Therefore, personal being starts at conception, for you can't acquire something you already are. It develops as you grow. If you are human then you are already a personal being. That personality is developed over time just like other attributes and abilities. For instance, built into a womans individual DNA (that is formed at conception when the 46 chromosomes combine) is the ability to reproduce, but the female must grow into that ability. It is part of her NATURE, but it does not become evident until later in her life. Do you care to dispute my last statement?

    Since you have admitted you DON'T KNOW when human life OR personal being begins, is it reasonable (as MT agreed) to give the unborn the benefit of the doubt?
    If so, then the unborn should NOT be butchered on the females whim.

    Peter

  10. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  11. #128
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post

    I know it is not me but I was wondering if this is addressing Frank or Evensaul?
    Frank. I should have quoted the post. I apologize. Frank stated this:
    Lots of you discussing here seem to think that the question in play revolves around whether or not a fertilized egg, a zygote, or a fetus is a "person" or "human being"...or a "potential person" or "potential human being"...or just a clump of cells.

    That is not the question for me.

    What I am saying...and actually indicated in my opening and follow-up remarks is:

    We are talking about a PREGNANCY...an unquestioned living, human body hosting whatever stage that fertilized egg takes during gestation. And as I see it...the person who's body is host to the the embryo, zygote, fetus, clump of cells, or potential human being...should be the one who makes any decisions about whether to continue the pregnancy or to terminate it.

    Nobody else should have veto power over that decision.

    For those of you who insist that the "object" in the gestation stage HAS TO BE CONSIDERED A HUMAN BEING...so be it. That does not change the fact that the "object" is being hosted by a living individual who has the right to say, "I no longer want this "object" housed in me...and I want it expelled."
    I was responding to that.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  12. #129
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    207
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Not at all. I welcome the discussion. I continue to answer every point you raise. I was hoping you would return fair play although I'm sure not to your satisfaction.
    I am willing to discuss anything and everything, Peter, but any reasonable, intelligent discussion has to be structured...or you are dealing with chaos.

    One other thing...if there cannot be agreement on certain essential elements...no discussion will be productive.

    A discussion about how best to send humans to Mars will not be very productive if the people engaged cannot agree to: In base 10...2 + 2 = 4. The math is essential.




    You want to direct and stear the conversation to only your talking points. I'm not the only person to ask you the same question over and over again about human beings.
    I do not want to do that. I want to take the various aspects in an orderly way...to avoid the chaos I see in so many posts here.



    I already told you that personhood begins at conception.
    YOU do not get to do that. YOU do not get to decide something that the finest minds on the planet still see as undecided. YOU do not get to say that only movies starring John Wayne are worth seeing...and then pretend to have a discussion about what movies are worth seeing.

    NOW...in my last post, after listening to what you said you "believe"...I responded:


    I you want to “believe” that, I support your right to do so.

    It is my opinion that personhood is something gained upon birth.

    Which of us is correct?

    Beats the ompah out of me!

    We both have opinions on the issue...it does not seem it is something that can be objectively resolved. I am sticking with my opinion.

    Let's deal with this...and we can move on from this after doing so.
    Until we resolve that...we are not going anywhere. And if we cannot resolve it, we simply have to agree to disagree and suspend discussion.

    You appear to want to say that my opinion simply does not matter...and that YOUR opinion of when personhood begins has to prevail.

    I fail to see why you think that is a reasonable way to have a discussion, but I respect your right to think it is.

    If you want to acknowledge that reasonable, intelligent, well-intentioned people can disagree on the question of when personhood begins...fine. (In this discussion, that is the equivalent of "In base 10...we acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 4)

    If you do...we can proceed.

    So?

    ---------- Post added at 07:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    To ask people for their stance on an issue without delving into their reasons or their stance is unreasonable and not a very good debate at all. When you enter into a debate, there should be certain indisputable facts upon which to build.

    You assert that a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy and site that it is her body. Many people believe that the "clump of twenty cells" is a human life, and to allow the termination would be murder. In essence, you are asking them if a woman should be allowed to commit murder because the life form resides in her body.

    Here is an interesting question for you: Does this mean that a surrogate mother who is carrying a pregnancy to term for a couple has the right to terminate said pregnancy? It is her body, after all.
    I saw your response to PGA...and came back to this.

    In my opinion...ANY woman carrying a pregnancy has the right to terminate said pregnancy. PERIOD. In your hypothetical, if the people who employed her to be a surrogate feel their contract with her has been violated...the have legal remedies they can pursue.

  13. #130
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    Frank. I should have quoted the post. I apologize. Frank stated this:

    I was responding to that.
    Thank you!

    ---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Thanks for the information but I still don't see anything more than [1] a precursor human without the qualities of consciousness, self-awareness, agency. Even looking at it, it's a little hard to distinguish it from other fetus at that age. [2] Also, just Googling around a bit shows a human and animal fetus is similar. So I have a hard time feeling emotionally that it's really a human. Even then, I think 8 weeks is enough to know whether you're pregnant or not and do something about it. In the case of rape or incest, caught early enough, a simple Plan-B pill will fix the problem.
    Hope you don't mind me cutting in and supplying my two cents worth?

    [1] A precursor human being??? What might that be? Either it is a human being, or it is not. If it is not a human being, what kind of being is it? If it has a human nature and it is alive how can it be anything other than a human being?

    [2] You are going down a fallacious path, IMO. Just because it is similar does not mean it is the same thing. If the DNA comes from two human beings and it becomes a separate, individual living being at conception when the chromosomes combine how could it be anything other than human? If it is human and ALIVE how could it be anything of than a being?

    Just because something is similar does not make it the same thing. Some beings are alike because they share the same environment.

    Science has determined the unborn to be a human being at conception, not birth.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The ultimate decision, and the best one, is the mother and the family should decide since they're the ones most affected. No one should force a decision either way and the government should support them and help them come to a conclusion they can live with. And don't think that those mothers aren't wracked with guilt if they decide to go with an abortion; nor that a mother won't end up regretting her decision to have the child if she doesn't, especially when that child requires constant care and practically ruins the mother's life.
    You want them to decide whether or not to kill their offspring. Unless you can show me that the unborn is something other than a human being what is the difference between killing the human being before birth as opposed to after birth? I appeal to the SLED example - size, level of development, environment, dependency. That is the basic difference as you why you justify killing it before but not after birth. These same four standards can be applied to a new born in comparison to an adult human being.

    I think the mothers are guilty because they know they are taking a human life.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It's a tough problem and one shouldn't forget that whether it is legal or not, abortions will happen. So really the decision is whether to regulate it so that it can be safely done but not have it treated as a backup plan.
    Again, apply that standard you stated to other things that are or should be illegal. So, because something is done, you want to make it legal. Because someone murders another human being, you want to make it legal. Because someone steals, you want to make it legal.

    How do you safely perform a murder?

    Peter

  14. #131
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Hope you don't mind me cutting in and supplying my two cents worth?
    [1] A precursor human being??? What might that be? Either it is a human being, or it is not. If it is not a human being, what kind of being is it? If it has a human nature and it is alive how can it be anything other than a human being?

    [2] You are going down a fallacious path, IMO. Just because it is similar does not mean it is the same thing. If the DNA comes from two human beings and it becomes a separate, individual living being at conception when the chromosomes combine how could it be anything other than human? If it is human and ALIVE how could it be anything of than a being?

    Just because something is similar does not make it the same thing. Some beings are alike because they share the same environment.

    Science has determined the unborn to be a human being at conception, not birth.
    Well, no one is claiming that it is anything but human but my point is that there isn't enough of an entity with recognizable human qualities such as functioning limbs, mobility, consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence, etc. It is basically a brain-dead creature that is easily killed without feeling too much squeamishness..


    You want them to decide whether or not to kill their offspring. Unless you can show me that the unborn is something other than a human being what is the difference between killing the human being before birth as opposed to after birth? I appeal to the SLED example - size, level of development, environment, dependency. That is the basic difference as you why you justify killing it before but not after birth. These same four standards can be applied to a new born in comparison to an adult human being.

    I think the mothers are guilty because they know they are taking a human life.
    Killing a fetus is more worse than killing a brain-dead adult. It's a mercy killing that removes a burden on the family and society. And of course they are taking a human life - that's kinda the point of an abortion. What you're refusing to recognize is the difference between a non-self-conscious, non-aware, non-independent human and one that does have all those qualities: that's what makes euthanasia morally allowable.

    Again, apply that standard you stated to other things that are or should be illegal. So, because something is done, you want to make it legal. Because someone murders another human being, you want to make it legal. Because someone steals, you want to make it legal.
    The argument is that abortions will happen anyway and causes more harm when done in back alleys. Legalizing it at least allows a level of control and education that would hopefully prevent the need for accidents. Your extension of whatever straw-man logic you're trying to apply to pro choice proponents makes no real sense when compared to other situations.

    How do you safely perform a murder?
    Not using coat hangers is a good start.

  15. #132
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Thanks for the information but I still don't see anything more than than a precursor human without the qualities of consciousness, self-awareness, agency. Even looking at it, it's a little hard to distinguish it from other fetus at that age. Also, just Googling around a bit shows a human and animal fetus is similar. So I have a hard time feeling emotionally that it's really a human. Even then, I think 8 weeks is enough to know whether you're pregnant or not and do something about it. In the case of rape or incest, caught early enough, a simple Plan-B pill will fix the problem.
    Well, it is an objective fact that the unborn are "human". You may be referring to person-hood, or you may be trying to deny it's humanity because you equate human with person (which you should equate).
    So, your factually incorrect here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    The ultimate decision, and the best one, is the mother and the family should decide since they're the ones most affected. No one should force a decision either way and the government should support them and help them come to a conclusion they can live with. And don't think that those mothers aren't wracked with guilt if they decide to go with an abortion; nor that a mother won't end up regretting her decision to have the child if she doesn't, especially when that child requires constant care and practically ruins the mother's life.

    It's a tough problem and one shouldn't forget that whether it is legal or not, abortions will happen. So really the decision is whether to regulate it so that it can be safely done but not have it treated as a backup plan.
    Not at all. It is the gov proper roll to protect a persons inherent right to life. If it isn't a person, then you are right, but the discussion rest firmly on if it is and if the reasons to think it is not are valid.


    So far the opposition continues to base their opinion on factually and scientifically demonstrably false statements. Like the unborn is not a human.
    That is just bad reasoning.
    To serve man.

  16. #133
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, it is an objective fact that the unborn are "human". You may be referring to person-hood, or you may be trying to deny it's humanity because you equate human with person (which you should equate).
    So, your factually incorrect here.
    It’s not a fully functional human though. Not recognizing that it isn’t really conscious or communicable doesn’t make it any more than a brain dead (or pre-brain) entity.

    Not at all. It is the gov proper roll to protect a persons inherent right to life. If it isn't a person, then you are right, but the discussion rest firmly on if it is and if the reasons to think it is not are valid.
    There’s no inherent right to life. We yank life support if it were deemed appropriate and the family agrees. It’s nothing to do with being a person or not but whether that life is really recognizably a conscious human we can interact with.

    So far the opposition continues to base their opinion on factually and scientifically demonstrably false statements. Like the unborn is not a human.
    That is just bad reasoning.
    You’re just quibbling over labels at this point. That’s never useful. We all agree that a life is being extinguished. Rather than arguing what to call the thing being killed you should focus on whether it is appropriate to do so.

  17. #134
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    It’s not a fully functional human though. Not recognizing that it isn’t really conscious or communicable doesn’t make it any more than a brain dead (or pre-brain) entity.
    Even if true, that is not relevant to being "human". You may think those are relevant to personhood though. So maybe your just using the language confusingly?

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    There’s no inherent right to life. We yank life support if it were deemed appropriate and the family agrees. It’s nothing to do with being a person or not but whether that life is really recognizably a conscious human we can interact with.
    When they pull life support it is generally because you are dead or deemed to be clinically dead. Not because you are ruled not a person.
    As to a "right to life" that is the law of the land. "life liberty pursuit of happiness". All ownership rights are based on the fact or assumption that you own your own life. Denying an inherent right to life, opens up all kinds of atrocities, like slavery. After all, if you personally don't have a right to life, then what is a killer violating by killing you? How is it "wrong"?

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    You’re just quibbling over labels at this point. That’s never useful. We all agree that a life is being extinguished. Rather than arguing what to call the thing being killed you should focus on whether it is appropriate to do so.
    Yes, humans have an inherent right to life. The unborn are human, thus they should not be killed or else it violates their right to life.

    By denying they are human, you factually violate the second part of that argument.
    or wrather. The second part of the argument "the unborn are human" is factually supported and objecting to it or contradicting it is factually wrong, and should be corrected.
    That is not a quibble over labels, it is a falsehood that you apparently believe and base your reasoning on, and thus your reasoning is faulty and incorrect.
    To serve man.

  18. #135
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Even if true, that is not relevant to being "human". You may think those are relevant to personhood though. So maybe your just using the language confusingly?
    I’m not really bothered about the labels. They’re just there to justify one position or another to link it to some pre-existing moral framework.

    When they pull life support it is generally because you are dead or deemed to be clinically dead. Not because you are ruled not a person.
    Right and that is determined by brain activity of some kind right?

    As to a "right to life" that is the law of the land. "life liberty pursuit of happiness". All ownership rights are based on the fact or assumption that you own your own life. Denying an inherent right to life, opens up all kinds of atrocities, like slavery. After all, if you personally don't have a right to life, then what is a killer violating by killing you? How is it "wrong"?
    It’s already not inherent in the cases I’ve pointed out and not inherent in the case of an abortion. So there’s no need to see everything in such black and white terms.

    Yes, humans have an inherent right to life. The unborn are human, thus they should not be killed or else it violates their right to life.
    OK and? The rest of history and modern law disagrees. So?

    By denying they are human, you factually violate the second part of that argument.
    or wrather. The second part of the argument "the unborn are human" is factually supported and objecting to it or contradicting it is factually wrong, and should be corrected.
    That is not a quibble over labels, it is a falsehood that you apparently believe and base your reasoning on, and thus your reasoning is faulty and incorrect.
    I’m flexible on labels; I only care about results. You’re the one wanting to affix labels so that you can justify a position that few modern countries follow.

  19. #136
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Right and that is determined by brain activity of some kind right?
    It is determined by "due process", or at least an attempt at it. The unborn are not afforded that, even with something as simple as I have done and taken your criteria and applied it to actual child development.
    Brain activity at about 8 weeks. So from your position you are inconsistent when you don't seek to protect the unborn who exhibit the elements you claim are relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by sharmak
    It’s already not inherent in the cases I’ve pointed out and not inherent in the case of an abortion. So there’s no need to see everything in such black and white terms.
    I pointed out how that assumption is problematic and dangerous.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    OK and? The rest of history and modern law disagrees. So?
    Yes those cultures had no problem with slavery and such and genocide and all sorts of things precisely because they deny that people have the right to life. Thus they thought they could own people because those people had no right to their own lives, much less their own labor.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m flexible on labels; I only care about results. You’re the one wanting to affix labels so that you can justify a position that few modern countries follow.
    Well, proper English is not "labels". If I have not used the terms in accordance with their definition you have a complaint. However your fixating on words and not ideas. I'm communicating the ideas and your factually incorrect.
    don't hold on to an incorrect position because you are emotionally attached to the label you don't want to use. make sure your reasoning is sound.
    As it is, I have shown how you are incorrect and you have chosen to attack some kind of labeling issue as though it is relevant to the ideas.

    As to results, I'm also interested in that.
    Hence I am happy to agree with you that the unborn at 8 weeks minimum should be considered persons based on the criteria you set forth. You seem to recoil from that implication based on emotion alone.
    To serve man.

  20. #137
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is determined by "due process", or at least an attempt at it. The unborn are not afforded that, even with something as simple as I have done and taken your criteria and applied it to actual child development.
    Brain activity at about 8 weeks. So from your position you are inconsistent when you don't seek to protect the unborn who exhibit the elements you claim are relevant.
    Depends what you mean by brain activity - in the frontal cortex? Is that fetus dreaming?

    I pointed out how that assumption is problematic and dangerous.
    Meh, I think people know where to draw the line. It’s you that has the problem that there shouldn’t be a line.

    Yes those cultures had no problem with slavery and such and genocide and all sorts of things precisely because they deny that people have the right to life. Thus they thought they could own people because those people had no right to their own lives, much less their own labor.
    I’m talking also about most modern societies. Are you also against PlanB or abortions before 8 weeks?

    Well, proper English is not "labels". If I have not used the terms in accordance with their definition you have a complaint. However your fixating on words and not ideas. I'm communicating the ideas and your factually incorrect.
    don't hold on to an incorrect position because you are emotionally attached to the label you don't want to use. make sure your reasoning is sound.
    As it is, I have shown how you are incorrect and you have chosen to attack some kind of labeling issue as though it is relevant to the ideas.

    As to results, I'm also interested in that.
    Hence I am happy to agree with you that the unborn at 8 weeks minimum should be considered persons based on the criteria you set forth. You seem to recoil from that implication based on emotion alone.
    Well, it doesn’t matter to me how you want to describe what is being killed and if you want to call it a ‘person’ then that’s fine too. I choose to have no problems killing it under various circumstances. Or rather, I have no problem giving the mother the choice to do so.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  21. #138
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Depends what you mean by brain activity - in the frontal cortex? Is that fetus dreaming?
    Why do you think that is relevant to personhood. People undergoing heart surgery don't have dreams or any brain activity.
    Are they not persons?

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    Meh, I think people know where to draw the line. It’s you that has the problem that there shouldn’t be a line.
    your appealing to history of man, that objectively did not know where that line was, and your position beggs the question of if there should even be a line.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m talking also about most modern societies. Are you also against PlanB or abortions before 8 weeks?
    My position is consistent with arguing against that... yes. But I am more than happy to aggee with you on 8 weeks and vote to stop it.

    Just for perspective
    Quote Originally Posted by link
    https://www.cdc.gov/reproductiveheal...s/abortion.htm
    The majority of abortions in 2014 took place early in gestation: 91.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation;
    So by agreeing here at this point 90% of abortions may be effected. ... trying to find numbers specific to 8weeks plus.. But that is millions of persons killed, to be consistent with your view.
    To serve man.

  22. #139
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why do you think that is relevant to personhood. People undergoing heart surgery don't have dreams or any brain activity.
    Are they not persons?
    If the brain doesn’t have the capacity to be a ‘person’ i.e. have a personality, I think it’s fair to count it in a vegetative state. Being unconscious is a temporary condition of a few hours.

    your appealing to history of man, that objectively did not know where that line was, and your position beggs the question of if there should even be a line.
    I’m appealing to the modern world with modern understandings of women, pregnancies, and abortions.

    My position is consistent with arguing against that... yes. But I am more than happy to aggee with you on 8 weeks and vote to stop it.

    Just for perspective
    So before 8 weeks, you’re fine to abort?

    So by agreeing here at this point 90% of abortions may be effected. ... trying to find numbers specific to 8weeks plus.. But that is millions of persons killed, to be consistent with your view.
    It’s a line that will move back and forth as we learn more and determine how society should handle unwanted births. And those 90% are within the first trimester, so we’re really only disagreeing about a month. I’m not bothered about it; it’s better to rid oneself of a baby rather than raise an unwanted or uncared for child that will be a burden on society.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  23. #140
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,148
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    If the brain doesn’t have the capacity to be a ‘person’ i.e. have a personality, I think it’s fair to count it in a vegetative state. Being unconscious is a temporary condition of a few hours.
    I have 5 kids, and one of the things that surprised me is to watch them grow up into a personality, almost like watching someone wake up.
    That you think personality is relevant of person-hood, is kinda disturbing as a criteria, because there is no reason to limit it to the unborn.
    It very much applies to the new born (assuming as you have).

    My point is your relying on some ideas that are arbitrary and defined only by you. Namely what it is to have the capacity for a personality.
    And how would you know that a thinking human doesn't? I wonder.

    In other words your "if" is certainly not accepted as being obvious and you have nothing to support your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    I’m appealing to the modern world with modern understandings of women, pregnancies, and abortions.
    yet my appeal to something as recent as the U.S. and it's culture that created the const who's assumptions still apply to law.. wasn't good enough?

    Your suffering from an arbitrary appeal to whatever fits your desire. As you have rejected my evidence for no reason other than your emotion and desire.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    So before 8 weeks, you’re fine to abort?
    I argue for conception, but I think we should at least find agreement at 8 weeks based on your position and the facts.
    You seem unwilling to accept it, which means your argument is not from reason but emotion.
    Which means it isn't an argument all but a sentement.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    It’s a line that will move back and forth as we learn more and determine how society should handle unwanted births. And those 90% are within the first trimester, so we’re really only disagreeing about a month. I’m not bothered about it; it’s better to rid oneself of a baby rather than raise an unwanted or uncared for child that will be a burden on society.
    This is where people always object to bringing up the Nazies and how far that line can move in line and as even as a consequence to the arguments you offer.

    We should take those as clues to abandon such fallacious thinking.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terms in the abortion debate
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: February 7th, 2018, 07:56 AM
  2. Is Equal Opportunity Possible?
    By UNC Reason in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 08:14 AM
  3. Missed terrorist opportunity?
    By FruitandNut in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  5. Debate Mastery: Abortion
    By TheOriginal in forum General Debate
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •