Your arm, so your choice.
Take note of the bolded words.
I believe entirely on people should have the right to whatever they want to there body, but a fetus/baby isn't part of the woman's body, therefore, its not her choice.
Abortion
Posts
Total:
108
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I am making the point that when you are having sex with someone else, there is a probability that through biological processes, a baby could be conceived.
I am making the point that when you have sex with someone else, there is a probability that through biological processes, a repeat performance could be conceived. The same overly broad definition which conflates consent to sex/consent to pregnancy distorts consent into a nonsensical and meaningless conception.
Sex is defined as a way to impregnate, or become pregnant, or a way to feel pleasure [...]
Even by this definition, pleasure and pregnancy are not tied together. Sex can be for pleasure, pregnancy, or both.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I believe entirely on people should have the right to whatever they want to there body, but a fetus/baby isn't part of the woman's body, therefore, its not her choice.
The womb belongs to the woman. Her womb, her choice, right?
The womb belongs to the woman. Her womb, her choice, right?
Yes, but were not talking about her womb. Were talking about the fetus/baby.
I am making the point that when you have sex with someone else, there is a probability that through biological processes, a repeat performance could be conceived. The same overly broad definition which conflates consent to sex/consent to pregnancy distorts consent into a nonsensical and meaningless conception.
No. It is through Choice and Choice alone, that a repeat process could be conceived. It is through Biological processes that a pregnancy could occur.
Even by this definition, pleasure and pregnancy are not tied together. Sex can be for pleasure, pregnancy, or both.
Well what is the biological purpose of sex. Clearly we did not evolve to have sex, just for pleasure through nature. That is an added function.
The soul purpose of having sex biologically, is to reproduce.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, but were not talking about her womb. Were talking about the fetus/baby.
Ok, then the woman should have the right to evict the fetus, it should be fine to survive on its own, right?
-->
@Bones
So do you believe that the autonomy of the instructor ought to trump to life of the kids and that they should be able to break the agreement to keep them safe, instead opting to drive off to leave them for death?
This is not analogous. There is no contract for pregnancies, kids are undeniably people and have undeniable rights (debatable for the unborn), and the instructor is not required to sustain the children with his/her own flesh and blood (and no contract would stipulate that).
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The womb belongs to the woman. Her womb, her choice, right?Yes, but were not talking about her womb. Were talking about the fetus/baby.
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?
Listen. My point is that if you decide to have sex, which is giving consent to sex, and a possible pregnancy, then you shouldn't be able to get an abortion just for your own convenience, because the baby inside of you is a living human, that 99.9998 percent of the time, is not causing harm to your body, therefore, therefore, you cant do anything to hurt, or murder that living human.
It's not like all women just wake up one day and there suddenly pregnant for no apparent reason, and people force them to give birth. No, they make that decision, whether its a bad sexual decision, or just a plain stupid decision.
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?
No. And you can remove them from your arm without killing them. You can't remove a fetus/baby out of the womb, before a certain time frame, without it dying.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, if someone latches on to your arm, that is effectively their arm now?No. And you can remove them from your arm without killing them.
Let's say you can't. Lets say you wake up in the morning to discover you were kidnapped in the middle of the night and someone was attached to your arm. You start to remove the tubes from your arm, but are told they will die without compounds in your blood. They should be independent in 9 months or so. What do you do?
Let's say you can't. Lets say you wake up in the morning to discover you were kidnapped in the middle of the night and someone was attached to your arm. You start to remove the tubes from your arm, but are told they will die without compounds in your blood. They should be independent in 9 months or so. What do you do?
So, your comparing getting kidnaped, to being pregnant.
This is what I want you to elaborate on.
Is the person who is attached to your arm, the one who kidnapped you?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Is the person who is attached to your arm, the one who kidnapped you?
Nope.
Don't all aborted fetuses go to Heaven? Isn't that a better outcome than becoming a Trump voter and then going to Hell?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Ok then. Another question. Has the person who is attached to your arm also been kidnapped?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok then. Another question. Has the person who is attached to your arm also been kidnapped?
Unknown.
Unknown.
See and there's the problem.
So lets assume you don't know. Simple answer, you ask them.
Either way on what they say, it's not your decision if they die. It is the person who put you in that situation, who will be the real killer.
Saying you killed them, is like an officer shooting someone, and saying," I didn't shoot them, the gun did."
Your argument is comparing pregnancy, to a similar "Saw" game.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Another fact also. You didn't consent do being kidnaped.
Again I at this point I am only arguing against abortions that have been done with consensual sex.
Being pro choice for abortion and being against abortion is conflicting.
To those that are asking how much is enough to the population of the planet?
Enough is when mankind has become immortal.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The embryo becomes a fetus at 8 weeks. Earlier you were referring to mere zygotes.
Please clarify which week of pregnancy forward you are opposed to ending it.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Simple answer, you ask them.
I guess I wasn't clear on that - they are unconscious.
Either way on what they say, it's not your decision if they die. It is the person who put you in that situation, who will be the real killer.
That goes against what you said earlier - that person is not your body. So is it 'my body, my choice' or not?
Another fact also. You didn't consent do being kidnaped.Again I at this point I am only arguing against abortions that have been done with consensual sex.
Consent to sex is consent to sex right now...not anything else; not pregnancy. That is simply a gross misunderstanding on your part.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
No. It is through Choice and Choice alone, that a repeat process could be conceived. It is through Biological processes that a pregnancy could occur.
You're arguing pregnancy is biological but sexual desire is not? Ok. 😆
FYI, if you use the reply function, it helps keep the conversation flowing. If you don't, it seems kind of like you are trying to end the conversation and have the last word. I'm happy to give you the last word, buddy. Just tell me you've said your piece.
-->
@Barney
@YouFound_Lxam
Please clarify which week of pregnancy forward you are opposed to ending it.
It seems as though he is generally opposed after conception.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I'm interested in digging down into this issue of a biological start to personhood. TheUnderdog argues from the outset that there is a biological beginning for personhood, but the only support I've seen for that (from him or anyone else) is that there's broad support for it (ad populum) among those we would consider experts (ad verecundiam), though I'll note that in the latter case, the experts are "biologists," which is a rather large and highly varied set of expertise. In both cases, this doesn't function as biological certainty - if you're going to treat this as scientifically proven, then appealing to anyone isn't going to move the needle, no matter how expert they are. We don't (and shouldn't) treat the statements of doctors/scientists as regard vaccines and climate change as proof that they are correct on those matters; these people did the research and published it, and whether a broader audience understands that research or not, it exists to demonstrate that their opinions on these matters are well-supported.
So, I ask: where is that research that demonstrates what is biologically defined as the beginning of personhood? Or, to be more precise, what traits have been proven by researchers to impart personhood? TheUnderdog rejects DNA as the sole determinant, so there are clearly more traits that determine what is a person. What are they, and why are those traits both necessary and sufficient to determine when one becomes a person? I say it that way because the argument implies what came before is not a person, even though they (the gametes) would obviously be classified as human under any biological definition. Some defined subset of traits necessarily must determine that conversion if you wish to define it biologically. Usually, the argument that biology is necessary to determine personhood, but that it doesn't come down to specific traits, instead somehow involving a view of a human's "nature," which seems less like a biological effort to determine when personhood starts and more of a circular and infinitely regressive threshold that takes biology out of the picture.
I'll note as well that I'm not arguing that this is a basis for determining the morality of abortion, I'm simply addressing a claim that I've seen a lot and honestly don't understand.
Both zygotes and fetus's.
Being pro choice for abortion and being against abortion is conflicting.
I'm pro choice for anything that doesn't have to do with pregnancy/baby's/abortion
You're arguing pregnancy is biological but sexual desire is not? Ok. 😆
That's not what I am arguing. Sexual desire is biological. The sexual desire boosts the rate in which people have sex. Therefore more people will be born because of that sexual desire.
That goes against what you said earlier - that person is not your body. So is it 'my body, my choice' or not?
That does not go against what I said earlier. The point is you are trying to compare abortion, to you being kidnaped then stuck in a room with an adult person who is unconscious for 9 months, and you are attached to them.
Consent to sex is consent to sex right now...not anything else; not pregnancy. That is simply a gross misunderstanding on your part.
Let me give you an example
If you agree to rob a bank with some guys, and they everyone has to agree not to snitch. They also say that their is a possibility that you will get caught. By going through with this plan, you are agreeing to the possibility that you might get caught. Same with sex. You are agreeing to the possibility of you maybe getting pregnant.
it seems kind of like you are trying to end the conversation and have the last word.
Where did you get that assumption? I am not trying to do that at all. In fact I want to hear what you have to say about this response to your argument.
-->
@whiteflame
Well we already know the scientific start of life is at conception. So we can assume that the start of person hood can very from conception, up till when the baby is born.
-->
@Bones
Semantically killing a human being, sure.I don't understand the need to specify "semantically" - it's like if a Nazi were to say "were ok fine we are semantically killing people but...". Why oughn't we just accept that abortion kills a human period?
Jumping the gun to Reductio ad Hitlerum, nice to see Godwin's Law in effect.
I've encountered a thought experiment I would be interested in having your feedback on.Suppose you are a camp instructor and you were bringing 3 kids onto a camping trip for 1 month. You sign the contract that you'll keep them safe, give them their resources and teach them about the wild life etc. In the fine prints, there is also the stipulation that in the case that an avalance occurs, you will be given access to a safehouse with food and resources, and you must sustain the lives of the children. This of course means you lose liberty (you cannot go away, you cannot leave the children, you eat and sleep bad, you are forced into certain acts of care etc). So do you believe that the autonomy of the instructor ought to trump to life of the kids and that they should be able to break the agreement to keep them safe, instead opting to drive off to leave them for death?
It's a neat thought experiment. I do believe it to be an apples to oranges comparison (or more like seeds vs fruit).
You're talking about someone literally signing a contract, with the lives of actual people at stake. Presumably these kids will eat canned food, rather than being vampires who will feed on their caretaker. The caretaker will further be rewarded as the hero who saved these children, rather than be punished with such things as lower income (our society seriously does this to mothers).
A thought experiment I use is a variety of the trolly problem, in which building catches fire and you have a choice of which to save: The hundreds of fertilized embryos from the fertility clinic, or the half dozen kids in the daycare.
Everyone would save the people, and no one would hold them at fault for letting hundreds of human beings die. This exemplifies that it is self evident that personhood and the protection of people is of higher value than the mere fact of humanity.
Do unborn children who are aborted or who die in the womb go straight to heaven? Would this be true even if the parents of the baby were not saved?
The short answer is yes. I’ll try to lay it all out for you as briefly and as simply as possible.
We begin with the assumption that preborn babies are just as “eligible” for heaven as anyone else. Why? Because they are just as human as anyone else. According to Genesis 1:27, all human beings are created “in the Image of God.” Every individual ever conceived bears that Image. It doesn’t matter who his parents are or what they happen to believe. This means that, in some mysterious way, each one of us is a “copy” or “graphic image” of the Creator. Every human being is a formal, visible, and understandable representation of who God is and what He is really like. We’ve been designed to enjoy interpersonal communion with Him and with each other for all eternity. How do we know this? Because community, fellowship, and relationship are basic to the very nature of the Trinity. That fellowship and community are what heaven is all about.
We begin with the assumption that preborn babies are just as “eligible” for heaven as anyone else. Why? Because they are just as human as anyone else. According to Genesis 1:27, all human beings are created “in the Image of God.” Every individual ever conceived bears that Image. It doesn’t matter who his parents are or what they happen to believe. This means that, in some mysterious way, each one of us is a “copy” or “graphic image” of the Creator. Every human being is a formal, visible, and understandable representation of who God is and what He is really like. We’ve been designed to enjoy interpersonal communion with Him and with each other for all eternity. How do we know this? Because community, fellowship, and relationship are basic to the very nature of the Trinity. That fellowship and community are what heaven is all about.