[QUOTE=Resfan;32397907]The "brainless blob" is going to be a human in 9 short months and you are stripping away any chance he/she will get to have these all important relationships you talk about just so the mother doesn't have to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather take into consideration the actual human than the potential human.
[QUOTE=Resfan;32397715]So I guess your not a human and have no kind of emotion since you to were a fetus, and I guess its ok to murder would be children so you can fuck around all day long.[/QUOTE]
At one point in time "I" was a sperm and egg but nobody is defending the status of zygotes in themselves. Who gives a shit about one potential future? I could easily get someone pregnant tonight if I wanted to; by not doing so I'm preventing a potentially deep, rich life from being born! How is this any fucking different to a fertilized egg?
[QUOTE=Resfan;32397907]The "brainless blob" is going to be a human in 9 short months and you are stripping away any chance he/she will get to have these all important relationships you talk about just so the mother doesn't have to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex.[/QUOTE]
Or being raped, or having the contraception fail, or breaking up with the dad and not being able to give the kid a decent upbringing etc.
My cum has the ability to become a kid too. Every sperm is half a "person", so every time I masturbate I probably kill a couple of million people. Women kill half a person each month. Why am I not stripping away those kids' futures if I could potentially get a women pregnant?
[QUOTE=Resfan;32397907]The "brainless blob" is going to be a human in 9 short months and you are stripping away any chance he/she will get to have these all important relationships you talk about just so the mother doesn't have to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex.[/QUOTE]
By [i]not[/i] having unprotected sex all the time I'm stripping any chance potential humans have of being born.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32397979]By [i]not[/i] having unprotected sex all the time I'm stripping any chance potential humans have of being born.[/QUOTE]
This.
There amount of life gained by either not having sex, having protected sex or having an abortion is the exact same.
For some reason nobody pro-life seems to understand that action and omission of action are one and the same.
[QUOTE=Resfan;32397907]The "brainless blob" is going to be a human in 9 short months and you are stripping away any chance he/she will get to have these all important relationships you talk about just so the mother doesn't have to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex.[/QUOTE]
Ever heard of rape?
[QUOTE=Resfan;32397907]The "brainless blob" is going to be a human in 9 short months and you are stripping away any chance he/she will get to have these all important relationships you talk about just so the mother doesn't have to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex.[/QUOTE]
The interests of actual humans should always come before this vague sense of potential that you seem to put such value on.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32397979]By [i]not[/i] having unprotected sex all the time I'm stripping any chance potential humans have of being born.[/QUOTE]
What about ovulating women? They strip the chances of potential humans every month by not getting impregnated. Instead they just menstruate, cold hearted whores!
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32398002]This.
There amount of life gained by either not having sex, having protected sex or having an abortion is the exact same.[/QUOTE]
Masturbation is also a factor :v:
[QUOTE=Resfan;32397907]The "brainless blob" is going to be a human in 9 short months and you are stripping away any chance he/she will get to have these all important relationships you talk about just so the mother doesn't have to deal with the consequences of having unprotected sex.[/QUOTE]
Protected sex can fail
Rape exists
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32397942]At one point in time "I" was a sperm and egg but nobody is defending the status of zygotes in themselves. Who gives a shit about one potential future? I could easily get someone pregnant tonight if I wanted to; by not doing so I'm preventing a potentially deep, rich life from being born! How is this any fucking different to a fertilized egg?[/QUOTE]
Not sure if you addressed this, but would the fact that a fertilized egg is developing and zygotes are not make a difference to you? If you leave a fetus alone, it will grow and develop, which sperm and eggs don't do.
Now the thread just started repeating itself.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32398668]Not sure if you addressed this, but would the fact that a fertilized egg is developing and zygotes are not make a difference to you? If you leave a fetus alone, it will grow and develop, which sperm and eggs don't do.[/QUOTE]
No, it's still dependant of the carrier. Sperm and eggs won't grow and develop on themselves, just like a fetus, without the help of the carrier or in this case the mother. Besides, what kind of fucking argument is that: 'it can grow and develop'. I thought the individual was what counted, not the potential one.
This is bullshit, I'm going to bed, have to get up at six am and it's already ten past twelf.
Abortion should be completely legal. If someone is raped and becomes pregnant, they shouldn't be forced to raise the child.
If someone gets pregnant at a party or something while drunk, and wasn't completely able to make a real decision, they shouldn't have to raise the child.
It's a choice that you should be allowed to legally make.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394238]This is why pro-choice arguments shouldn't even bother appealing to the status of unborn babies.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394398]Because the mother's right to make her own decisions overrides a tiny bundle of cells with barely any - if any at all - cognitive ability.[/QUOTE]
Now you're doing it.
[QUOTE=Bftony;32398852]No, it's still dependant of the carrier. Sperm and eggs won't grow and develop on themselves, just like a fetus, without the help of the carrier or in this case the mother. Besides, what kind of fucking argument is that: 'it can grow and develop'. I thought the individual was what counted, not the potential one.
This is bullshit, I'm going to bed, have to get up at six am and it's already ten past twelf.[/QUOTE]
Of course the thing needs a fucking mother. If left alone in the womb, as it is naturally supposed to, it will grow. The individual should be counted, of course, but not to the point were it completely overrides the potential's shot at a life. If your going to say the parent will be stuck with a child, then you put the kid in adoption, and it seems nobody really argued that much about that.
I'm not for abortion nor do I support it in any way possible. But I don't think my beliefs should effect the lives of the women. Kinda like with gay marriage, a group opposes it therefor the lives of many gays have been changed. So I'm not really in a position to say whether its wrong or right
Im against abortion normally but the results of rape or if the baby will be born with a deadly flaw is a gray area for me. I am one of those people that say if you are not prepared for a baby just put it up for adoption. No need to put down your own kin. Regardless of weather its just a bundle of cells, its still has life. Im not going to get into this argument too much, just putting that up there.
[QUOTE=TH89;32398972]Now you're doing it.[/QUOTE]
The key point I was making was that this bundle of cells - call it a person if you like for all I care - has no cognitive ability and hence no aspirations or thoughts or conception of happiness or suffering. The point I was making in the first quote was that it doesn't matter if you think a foetus is a person or not, because ultimately the distinction between a person and not a person is arbitrary.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32397480]Finding out you're adopted sucks.
If you're never born you won't find out you're adopted because you've never been adopted!
Horrible argument.
If you love life so much why don't you fuck everyone you can and get as many kids as you can. It's better to have shitty parents than to never have been born, right?[/QUOTE]
Right, so because you are murdered you don't have to worry about finding out you are adopted? That's your point? Sure we may aswell murder each other so we never get a cold, or suffer any trial/illness in future then. Infact, we should just kill all children under 8 so they never have to go through bad experiences.
[b]Horrible[/b] argument.
Loving life and acting on that love are two different things.
I don't accept many of the typical abortion arguments. The pro-choice side has a good tactic of making as many arguments as possible and hoping one sticks.
Almost all of the tactics employed are semantically based, which to me disqualifies so much of the rhetoric. People are mislead into believing that calling a fetus a sack of cells or a baby is somehow making an argument. It isn't, it may make more a more convincing argument to some, but the argument is just the same with different words. I'm not going to doubt that rhetorical games play a big role in debates, but I can't take these rhetorical games seriously.
Really where the crux of the debate comes into play is at what stage of development to consider something that has the potential to become a human, a human. Really this entire part of the debate is about words and who can twist them best. Anyway, onto my point.
If any person inflicts death upon the developing fetus, that person is going to face at the minimum manslaughter charges. Why? Because it is assumed that the carrier of the fetus was going to give birth to it. But what if the carrier did not intend on doing so, should the person face manslaughter charges? No, but the person would have to pay for the inconvenience and damage caused.
Now only difference between those two scenarios is the carrier's intention. Few would argue that carriers ought not to have the right to sue when someone causes or threatens to cause the death of the fetus. Yet when the carrier has no intention on continuing development of the fetus, it is just for them allow someone to kill the fetus. The conclusion to this is that whether a fetus can have rights or not is dependent upon the carrier's intention. This of course the logic the pro-choice side suffers from, but I doubt many people recognize it.
Personally, I quite disagree with abortion, but I believe it should be legal as it being illegal is much worse.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32400218]If any person inflicts death upon the developing fetus, that person is going to face at the minimum manslaughter charges. Why? Because it is assumed that the carrier of the fetus was going to give birth to it. But what if the carrier did not intend on doing so, should the person face manslaughter charges? No, but the person would have to pay for the inconvenience and damage caused.[/quote]
Pay for the inconvenience and damage? Inconvenience and damage to who, the hospital? The dead fetus?
[QUOTE=Caesar;32399402]Right, so because you are murdered you don't have to worry about finding out you are adopted? That's your point? Sure we may aswell murder each other so we never get a cold, or suffer any trial/illness in future then. Infact, we should just kill all children under 8 so they never have to go through bad experiences.
[b]Horrible[/b] argument.
Loving life and acting on that love are two different things.[/QUOTE]
At least you understand.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32400218]Really where the crux of the debate comes into play is at what stage of development to consider something that has the potential to become a human, a human. Really this entire part of the debate is about words and who can twist them best.[/QUOTE]
Okay so your argument is thus
No, the crux isn't anything about at what point something has the potential to become a human.
Peter Singer says it a lot better than I do: [url]http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm[/url]
And as its been stated a thousand times, if potential life should be cultivated regardless of the cost to one's happiness, how come we let women menstruate? They're denying a potential human life the chance to live. Seriously if someone doesn't address this the argument is basically lost.
I want to live in a world where we have happy people: not where people are driven only by the mad desire to cultivate life.
[QUOTE=Caesar;32399402]Right, so because you are murdered you don't have to worry about finding out you are adopted? That's your point? Sure we may aswell murder each other so we never get a cold, or suffer any trial/illness in future then. Infact, we should just kill all children under 8 so they never have to go through bad experiences.
[b]Horrible[/b] argument.
Loving life and acting on that love are two different things.[/QUOTE]
I can't believe you took that seriously.
I don't care if you call it murdering a developing baby, I believe no woman who has gone through the anguish of rape should have to bear a child of her assailant. Pro choice.
Let them do what they want with their body.
I don't see why the hell there should even be an argument. Raising children shouldn't be something that people are forced to do just because of one little thing.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32400454]Pay for the inconvenience and damage? Inconvenience and damage to who, the hospital? The dead fetus?[/QUOTE]
The carrier, assuming there are damages and inconveniences caused and that the carrier did not ask to be punched in the stomach. Essentially the medical bill, inconveniences caused by having to remove the dead fetus at a time and fashion otherwise expected, and likely assault charges.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32400644]Okay so your argument is thus
No, the crux isn't anything about at what point something has the potential to become a human.
Peter Singer says it a lot better than I do: [url]http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm[/url]
And as its been stated a thousand times, if potential life should be cultivated regardless of the cost to one's happiness, how come we let women menstruate? They're denying a potential human life the chance to live. Seriously if someone doesn't address this the argument is basically lost.
I want to live in a world where we have happy people: not where people are driven only by the mad desire to cultivate life.[/QUOTE]
First, it should be well understand that I'm making light of the different sides in that quote, I'm not making any potential life argument. I really think you may misunderstand me as my argument does even revolve around defining human life. Rather it narrows your position to being to where a life is considered human is dependent upon the intention of the carrier. No semantics involved. I don't have any issue with such a position, but I do think people need to be aware of the logical implications.
I can see and argument that regardless of intention that all carriers should retain right to sue for their loss because even if they currently plan on getting an abortion they might change their mind, but I wouldn't see the purpose of pointing that out if you're on the pro-choice side because not only would saying so reiterate my point about intention but it wouldn't affect the argument.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32396426]Or the fetus could end up becoming a mass murderer or fascist dictator. Worst argument ever.
It's so god damn easy for you to say that people should just accept what they did because you're a guy. This is never going to become a problem for you. You're telling other people what they should be able to do with their own bodies.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that being a genius or a mass murderer is mostly an environmental thing. It depends on [b]where[/b] and [b]how[/b] you are raised. It's not necessarily genetic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
