Siding with Death

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140328-sloth-bear-zoo-infanticide-chimps-bonobos-animals/

11.20.2018 11:44AM

3

11.20.2018 11:44AM

Human babies are born helpless and are helpless for a long time and require considerable effort and sacrifice for their survival. Thus we are programmed to value babies highly so we put in the effort and sacrifice required.

However suppose we had evolved along a slightly different track such that a mother eating her child in times of stress in order to survive and have a another baby at a more propitious time was how things have been since the beginning. it is probable we would have a very different view of what was and what is not 'moral' in that case.

#122

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,795

3

4

9

11.20.2018 02:46PM

3

4

9

11.20.2018 02:46PM

-->

@keithprosser

However suppose we had evolved along a slightly different track...

Good point.

Even rabbits will eat their babies. And I thought they were vegetarians.

#123

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

11.20.2018 04:27PM

2

3

11.20.2018 04:27PM

-->

@ethang5

You aren't any kind of authority on women, medicene, or science. Who gave you the authority to speak for them? Or decide when a human is a person? Or tell me what to do?

I offer truth you, not so much if at all. Do you even understand the differrence. No? Yeah I didnt think so.

As per your usual have not any shred of authority, rational, logical common sense that invalidates any of my comments as stated.

You have your immoral ---and lack of empathy for the pregnant woman--, opinion.

Please share when you actually have anything of significant relevance to say in these regard. You do not becuase you have not any moral, rational, logical common sense to offer others on this issue. Sick-n-the-Head

Lock Your Type Away Today so as to keep you _____n nose *v* out of pregnant womens bodies when they have not given your consent to stick your nose there. SIck-n-the-head is what you and your type are.

Sick-N-the-Head.

Topic's author

#124

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

11.20.2018 04:30PM

3

6

11.20.2018 04:30PM

-->

@3RU7AL

(IFF) human a soul sparks into being at the very moment of conception

(THEN) every miscarriage is very likely a murder/manslaughter/child abuse case.

Illogical. A human adult whom I'm sure you would agree is fully deserving all rights, can die with there being no crime. Why would a miscarriage be automatically a crime?

(AND) every miscarriage should be reported and investigated to the fullest extent of the law.

Just as every death is now. So what?

Ok, so when you said that it was more realistic to try and save the lives of every human that has already been born, and less realistic to try and save the lives of every embryo that has yet to be born,

Please show where I said this. You abortion people always get so emotional. I have no clue why you think I said this.

...and you refused to explain why you decided to choose the latter rather than the former,

I don't have to explain anything to you, especially things I didn't say. I'm sure you have your pro-life caricature in your mind, but please debate me and not him.

Confirms my point. Relatively few are due to rape.

32,000 a year is few?

Relative to all births, yes. Making laws on exceptions is silly. You talk as if most births are due to rape. The aren't.

EVERYONE believes in "personal responsibility"

You don't. You think the floozy who voluntarily spread her legs should escape the responsibility of birth. You want the scuzzy drug addict to escape the responsibility of addiction. And you want others to pay for it.

Are you denying that INNOCENT people die every day from preventable conditions and causes?

No homer, I'm saying it is not possible to help all of them.

I merely suggested that current law is not prepared to address every miscarriage.

Why not?

Finally!! A perfect solution.....

Now that you're through yelling, maybe you can answer the question you dodged. Is it sensible to base personhood on technology? Start yelling again and the question will just wait till you're honest again.

Some conjoined twins are not separate and cannot survive apart.

Good point.

That is why you are losing. Arguments are not paintings, they are knives. Tools. Address the point.

Rights are not given based on genetic percentage.

Good point. So why were you talking about genetics?

Because you said the baby is not human, AND, it is part of the mother. That is a contradiction. If the baby is part of the mother, it would share her DNA. It doesn't. And if the baby was not human, it would not have human DNA. It does. Your argument is illogical.

So is your understanding of genetics.

Clearly, not every organ or tumor or migrated cells within a single person that is genetically distinct from the majority of cells is considered "a different person".

You have no clue what you're talking about. The only example you gave was of a baby. That was my point remember? Tumors are not genetically different. And "migrated cells" are pseudoscience nonsense.

And yet you have no problem standing by and doing nothing when people are fleeing a war zone.

Stop being silly. I cannot save everyone. So I take care of my citizens first. I do not bring people into my country who will harm my people or my country.

Those people have countries. Let them build it the way Americans built their country. American money is for Americans. Conservatives are not evil because they don't follow your broken morality. They don't have to. Your morality is not the standard.

What a person does with their body (and what they discuss with their physician) is a matter of privacy,....

What a people do with their country (and what they discuss with their politicians) is a matter of privacy,....

Think.

#125

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

11.20.2018 04:39PM

2

3

11.20.2018 04:39PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

does having unique human dna and chromosomes make a human? if not what does that make?

Irrelevant to being an organism of the pregnant mother.

The fetus/baby is has not yet taken in its first IN-spiration of oxygen to become viable, independent/individual human. Some immorals here dont seem to be able to grasp the truth of this fundamental differrence between organism of the pregnant woman and viable individual/independent.

Some sick-n-the-head individuals just cannot refrain from sticking their nose *v* in womens bodies without the woman giving her consent.

The only true non-unique progeny are those species of female that make exact clones of themselves without males.

Ex some geckos https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/asexual-lizards/

..."Species as diverse as Komodo dragons and hammerhead sharks do it asexually if necessary, but some species, like these little lizards, don't have a choice. "They can't exchange genetic material, and this loss of genetic exchange is a major disadvantage to them in a changing environment," he says. Unless an animal can recombine the DNA they already have, they will produce an offspring with an identical set of chromosomes, in which any genetic weakness, such as disease susceptibility or physical mutation, would have no chance to be overridden by outside genetic material from a mate."...

#126

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,979

2

3

11.20.2018 05:08PM

2

3

11.20.2018 05:08PM

-->

@keithprosser

However suppose we had evolved along a slightly different track such that a mother eating her child in times of stress in order to survive and have a another baby at a more propitious time was how things have been since the beginning.

I was a hog farmer and have seen mama sows eating their new born young/piglets You would think, are they sick-n-the-head, or what?

Ive seen cows eating their placenta after birth of calf.

#127

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.20.2018 05:11PM

3

6

11.20.2018 05:11PM

-->

@mustardness

other animals aren't relevant as we kill them, eat them etc, they have far less value than humans in our society. For a long time after, a baby that is born is not independent so that's irrelevant. Some people can't breathe oxygen on their own but we can't kill them, why do they have more worth than an unborn baby?

Explain why it's ok to kill a baby while it's still inside the mother, but not once it's outside once it's reached a gestational age of viability.

Let's say a woman is 6 months pregnant, why it is ok to kill that baby, but once it's out side, even for one millisecond, it can not be legally killed? it's still attacked via umbilical cord and placenta, sometimes they aren't breathing on their own and require intervention. In such cases does the woman have the right to deny that intervention or decide to have it killed then? If not, why not?

#128

Stronn

Debates: 0

Posts: 511

2

4

Stronn

11.20.2018 05:28PM

2

4

11.20.2018 05:28PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

For one thing, a baby inside a mother is making demands on the mother's health and and body that a baby outside is not.

Topic's author

#129

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

11.20.2018 05:42PM

3

6

11.20.2018 05:42PM

-->

@Stronn

Untrue.

Answer this. A baby is born, cord still attached to the mother, but is not breathing. The doctor comes to lift the child and spank it so that it starts breathing. The mother tells the doctor, "no". I don't want to be spanked. The doctor says, if we don't spank the baby, it will die. It needs to start breathing. The mother says, it is a part of me, it cannot live independently, it is not a unique person. Please don't violate my personal privacy.

The baby dies. Has the mother committed a crime? If yes, what crime? If no, why not?

#130

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.20.2018 06:39PM

3

6

11.20.2018 06:39PM

-->

@Stronn

and?

A baby outside the body is making financial and attention demands etc, so what.

#131

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.20.2018 07:15PM

3

6

11.20.2018 07:15PM

-->

@ethang5

for a very long time in history and still in certain parts of the world, babies have been dependent on their mothers for breast milk and would die w/o it, so this whole dependence and relying on the mother's body is a terrible argument. if this is as good as they have.... lol just lol

Topic's author

#132

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

11.20.2018 08:54PM

3

6

11.20.2018 08:54PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

and?
A baby outside the body is making financial and attention demands etc, so what.

It's just silly what they do. They pick some arbitrary difference, "the baby is smaller", or " the baby is dependant on the mother", or "the baby has fewer cells", and that is supposed to make the baby not a person.

They know the argument for abortion is bogus. They should just come out and say the truth. "This is what we want to do. Morality be damned."

#133

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,795

3

4

9

11.21.2018 05:17PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 05:17PM

-->

@ethang5

It's just NORMAL what they do. They pick some ONTOLOGICAL difference, "the baby is smaller", or " the baby is dependent on the mother", or "the baby has fewer cells", and that DEFINES the EMBRYO as not an individual person with the full rights and protection of the law.

In the same way that, Pluto is not a planet.

They know the argument for EMBRYONIC RIGHTS and ALL LIFE IS SACRED is bogus. They should just come out and say the truth. "This is what we want to do. The rest of humanity be damned."

Look,

If you want the government or some other charitable organization to take these embryos and raise them to term, MAKE IT HAPPEN.

Based on political affiliations, churches everywhere should be offering FREE CHILDCARE AND ADOPTION.

Look,

You can argue all day and all night about what rights an embryo should have.

But that entire ontological discussion is a RED HERRING.

Your only concern should be about what happens AFTER THE CORD IS CUT.

You can't claim that "all life is precious" and then turn a blind eye every time a (real live) child (or adult) is in danger.

#134

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,795

3

4

9

11.21.2018 05:22PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 05:22PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

for a very long time in history and still in certain parts of the world, babies have been dependent on their mothers for breast milk and would die w/o it, so this whole dependence and relying on the mother's body is a terrible argument. if this is as good as they have.... lol just lol

For a very long time in history and still in certain parts of the world, babies have been dependent on their mothers for breast milk and would die w/o it, so this whole dependence and relying on the mother's body is a perfect argument.

For a very long time in history and still in certain parts of the world, babies have been left on the temple steps, so this whole arguing from historical norms is a perfect argument.

#135

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.21.2018 05:29PM

3

6

11.21.2018 05:29PM

-->

@3RU7AL

those things are true. the argument that the woman has some kind of special right, or right at all due to dependency when it's inside her vs when it's not, isn't correct or logical.

#136

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,795

3

4

9

11.21.2018 05:39PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 05:39PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

those things are true. the argument that the woman has some kind of special right, or right at all due to dependency when it's inside her vs when it's not, isn't correct or logical.

Yes it is.

It is the exact same argument the people use for immigration.

If a human is living in our country (womb) and they are not authorized (unwanted) then we have them forcibly removed and sent to a war zone.

We don't seem to care if that human will almost certainly die after they are ejected from our country (womb).

I mean, we might care a little bit, but not enough to spend 18 years taking on all the risk and responsibility for a G*D* foreigner.

Topic's author

#137

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

11.21.2018 05:53PM

3

6

11.21.2018 05:53PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Look, If you want the government or some other charitable organization to take these embryos and raise them to term,

Where is your personal responsibility now? Why can't the skanks keep their legs closed if they don't want babies? But your argument always starts AFTER the irresponsibility. If they lived like human beings, instead of like rutting wilderbeests, they wouldn't have the problem.

MAKE IT HAPPEN.

When we try to, idiot liberals claim we are violating the woman's privacy.

Based on political affiliations, churches everywhere should be offering FREE CHILDCARE AND ADOPTION.

Silly. There are hundreds of religions and hundreds of beliefs.

Look, You can argue all day and all night about what rights an embryo should have.
But that entire ontological discussion is a RED HERRING.

Especially since only you think it's ontological.

Your only concern should be about what happens AFTER THE CORD IS CUT.

No sir. Because what happens before the cord is cut determines whether there will be a cord to cut at all.

You can't claim that "all life is precious" and then turn a blind eye every time a (real live) child (or adult) is in danger.

Please stop being stupid. No one can address every real live child or adult that is in danger.

#138

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.21.2018 06:35PM

3

6

11.21.2018 06:35PM

-->

@3RU7AL

rofl, dude that was stretch armstrong reach you got going on there. Immigrant chose to risk life and limb

We don't seem to care if that human will almost certainly die after they are ejected from our country

unless you have some stats to prove otherwise, that's not true, given how many times people/criminals have been deported, i would call that flat out false. Where as 100% of abortions end in death. apples and grapefruit.

#139

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

11.21.2018 06:42PM

3

11.21.2018 06:42PM

It may be worth repeating that this isn't between good and bad but a choice between two bads;

1- the birth of an unwanted child

2- the premature termination of a life.

Neither of those is desirable so it's a question of choosing 'the lesser of two evils'. Most people think that the evil of 2) varies in that it is much worse if the life being terminated is well-developed; if you are talking about aborting a 32 or 64 cell blastula the evil is almost non-existent (unless you are a total extremist!)

I think research is always needed to better determinine when a foetus can actually suffer, but I think the 24 week guideline used by the NHS in the UK is resonable.

Topic's author

#140

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

3

6

11.21.2018 06:42PM

3

6

11.21.2018 06:42PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

100% of abortions end in death. apples and grapefruit.

Very good point.

And I hate grapefruit.

#141

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.21.2018 06:54PM

3

6

11.21.2018 06:54PM

-->

@keithprosser

I'm not familiar with their guidelines, why do you agree with them?

Heard recently a state is trying to stop abortions after fetal heart tones are heard. Obviously if there's something in the brain/nervous system that activates the heart beat, then it is alive, regardless of any other arguments trying to define it. At the very least it's an animal, lesser life form, whatever, but it is alive.

#142

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/

11.21.2018 07:20PM

3

11.21.2018 07:20PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

Generally the NHS does abortions upto 24 weeks.

I know FA about embryology so I had an opinion on the actual figure it would be worthless.

My view is that the balance betwen options change during pregancy. I have considerable moral qualms about very late abortions

but I would pemit them because forcing women to bring unwanted babies to term does not result in happy mothers and babies but in unsafe illegal abortions and misery. But the termination of late term preganancies is not an light matter and I don't think that pro-lifers get that pro-choicers such as myself do get that.

#143

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,795

3

4

9

11.21.2018 07:31PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 07:31PM

-->

@ethang5

Where is your personal responsibility now?

The same place it has always been. Mr. Rhetorical.

Why can't the skanks keep their legs closed if they don't want babies?

How is pregnancy 100% the woman's responsibility? I'm sure you know how pregnancy works.

But your argument always starts AFTER the irresponsibility.

This statement is false. I ALWAYS prefer prevention over crisis management. The problem is, conservatives are anti-prevention.

If they lived like human beings, instead of like rutting wilderbeests, they wouldn't have the problem.

Oh, you mean if humans had no reproductive instinct or hormones? At that point humans would have practically no problems at all.

When we try to (allow removal of an embryo), idiot liberals claim we are violating the woman's privacy.

You are going to have to explain how you think allowing someone else to remove an embryo and raise it to term with ectogenesis is a "violation of the woman's privacy".

Silly. There are hundreds of religions and hundreds of beliefs.

Oh, and how does this relate to anti-abortion protesters also being anti-childcare?

Especially since only you think [the status of an embryo] it's ontological.

You have failed to cite either an indisputable authoritative source or definition or an overwhelming consensus as a source for your ontological definition of "individual human with the full protection of the law".

No sir. Because what happens before the cord is cut determines whether there will be a cord to cut at all.

If you don't care about the baby after the cord is cut, why bother before the cord is cut?

Does a baby suddenly get less important after the cord is cut?

No one can address every real live child or adult that is in danger.

And yet, as you already agreed earlier, saving every post-natal human is a much more realistic goal than trying to save every embryo.

(IFF) an immortal human soul sparks into existence at the very moment of conception (THEN) every woman who fails to take every possible measure to prevent a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter.

#144

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,795

3

4

9

11.21.2018 07:35PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 07:35PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

At the very least it's an animal, lesser life form, whatever, but it is alive.

So now you're against killing all animals????????????????????????????????????????

#145

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.21.2018 07:37PM

3

6

11.21.2018 07:37PM

-->

@keithprosser

I agree death does take the emotion out of it, for the baby anyway.

How late is too late in your opinion?

You don't deny that it is a baby, correct? (seems some do)

women bring unwanted babies to term all the time, more than abort them so I don't understand the logic there.

in essence desire>life

for the other readers

at 5 months

Mother begins to feel fetal movement.
Internal organs are maturing.
Eyebrows, eyelids and eyelashes appear.

#146

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.21.2018 07:41PM

3

6

11.21.2018 07:41PM

-->

@3RU7AL

I don't think I've said I'm for or against anything, but rather clarifying, understanding and making some commit to their positions. While it's making some uncomfortable to be cornered like that, it seems to be the only way. Again don't be wishy washy about it, be honest and informed. The sugar coating doesn't stick so well, when it is removed all that is left is the truth, some don't like that now do they.

#147

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

11.21.2018 07:42PM

3

11.21.2018 07:42PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

I don't care if its called a baby or a foetus.... I prefer to echo Jeremy Bentham

"The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?"

#148

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,795

3

4

9

11.21.2018 07:44PM

3

4

9

11.21.2018 07:44PM

-->

@TheDredPriateRoberts

rofl, dude that was stretch armstrong reach you got going on there. Immigrant chose to risk life and limb

99.9999% of sperm die attempting to locate the ovum.

We don't seem to care if that human will almost certainly die after they are ejected from our country
unless you have some stats to prove otherwise, that's not true, given how many times people/criminals have been deported, i would call that flat out false. Where as 100% of abortions end in death. apples and grapefruit.

Unless you have some stats to prove otherwise, that's not true [my new sig].

It is immaterial to immigration law, whether the person lives or dies after deportation.

Get out of my country (womb) and fend for yourself, blood sucking freeloaders!!!!!!!!

#149

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,383

3

6

11.21.2018 07:51PM

3

6

11.21.2018 07:51PM

-->

@keithprosser

I don't care if its called a baby or a foetus.... I prefer to echo Jeremy Bentham
"The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?"

so if they can suffer, then what? still ok?

#150

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,795

3

4

9