Total posts: 334
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Self-defense you are saving your life. Euthanasia is morally dicey but in any case it is the person's decision to kill themselves. In abortion, you are forcing your will onto another human being. There is a difference between murder and killing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
So it should not be illegal to kill a human being? You are ultimately giving them that right to kill another human being, just clarifying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Thank you for your input. When you come back again, I would hope you would try to be more productive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Miscarriages are completely different from abortions. Miscarriages, the women does not choose whether to kill the baby. Unfortunately miscarriages happen, and it is very sad. In abortion, you choose to deliberately kill the baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Debates are too tryhard and most people use definition semantics and stuff. I think forums are more productive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Just to be clear...you think a women's bodily autonomy "rights" give them them the right to kill another human being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
So then where do you draw the line as to what a sufficient reason is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
So you have no self-morals? All your morals are based on society?
What would you consider sufficient reason? Would you consider hormonal changes a sufficient reason to kill a human being? Where do you draw the line?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Enough with the semantics. Shall we use "kill" instead of "murder?" Ok, thank you.
Again, you have yet to answer my question and keep dodging it.
Logically, why can we kill a baby inside the womb, but can not outside the womb? If they are both human beings, then why aren't you against killing them in the womb? Where do you draw the line? Does a women's hormonal changes give them a right to kill a human being?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Your ego creating mental blockages to truth sad ;--(
Not being able to understand what someone else is saying has nothing to do with ego.
More of you ego creating your usual false narrative. Sad :--(
Nothing to do with ego. That is what I got from your response. Simply re-typing your response will generate the same consensus from me. If you want to clarify or correct my position, then do so. Just explain what you mean or when you think life starts in a short sentence. WOW! Now I understand your position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I literally have no idea what you are saying. You could just say what you mean in a coherent sentence, instead of philosophically written paragraph. Just say it directly bro.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I said "Just because its popular does not make it morally right"
It is widely agreed upon that murder is wrong. I think we agree on that. My point is people are not fully educated on what they are killing and what is going on during abortion. If we agree murder is wrong, we are trying to logically follow under which circumstances we can murder a human being in the womb. Where do you draw the line? If you stick a knife through a baby's chest outside the womb its 1st degree murder, but if its inside the womb we call it a human right. Why aren't you against murder inside the womb?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Eh, that's a difficult question. There are pretty widely accepted moral standards, and I would say anti-murder would be one of them. When it comes to abortion, most people are not educated on what they are killing. I like to think of these questions logically and to justify the positions. My question would be at what point point or reasoning does the women get to murder another human being? Morally, this is, and logically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Any reason given that is readily accepted by society at large is sufficient to me
Ad-populum fallacy. Just because it is popular does not make it morally right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
According to my logic I have no problems with any sort of killing of human beings as long as a sufficient reason is given
The majority of reasons, including the ones you cited, had nothing to do with a women's health or changing their body. It was purely economic or convenience. What would you deem a "sufficient reason?"
<br>Apart from this question being contingent on a flawed definition of viability
This is the most used definition by pro-choicers and was straight from wikipedia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Life- "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter"
In science, the organism created is referred to as a life.
And why should life in humans be any different to life in other forms?
I believe humans have moral intrinsic value much more than any other being. Animal rights or whatever you are trying to bring up here is a different discussion and irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You were pretty incoherent, but what I got is that you think life starts the moment a baby is born. This is simply not true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
@SirAnonymous
EXPOSE HIM!!!! OHHHHHHHH!!!!
I did look. I compiled every post you made since I asked the question back on page 12. None of them even acknowledged that my question existed. If you answered my question, then provide a link to your answer. If I'm lying, then prove it.
<br>I have.Off you go now.
Danggg, I'm sorry but "disgusted" just got shredded. This should be a youtube video- "SirAnonymous DESTROYS hypocritical leftist SNOWFLAKE with FACTS and LOGIC"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Bahahaha, I nailed it.
If you were intellectually honest then you would read my response and be intellectual. "Now let me guess, you are going to conflate abortion to surgery to try and make your false point that we don't have a right to know what's happening in abortion."
"Again, abortion involves the murder of an unborn baby, regular surgery does not. I have a right to have a say in protecting innocent unborn children."
"is that personhood starts when a life becomes viable. In this case, that would be 22 week"
If you didn't cherry part of the quote, you would see...
You yourself said, and what I've been talking about this whole time, is that personhood starts when a life becomes viable
Yourself meaning dustryder, as I was addressing him. I was going off his logic, not mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
This isn't theistic this is scientific. There is no agenda here. It is just a scientific fact that when a sperm fuses with an egg through meiosis, a knew life forms with its own unique DNA code.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You just continue to dishonestly misstate the question under discussion, come back when you've learned some honesty.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
So you agree with 1st trimester abortions? Good for you.
When did I ever say that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Another question- "Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus." (since your into the dictionary thing)
A baby can not survive outside the womb. It does not know how to care for itself. The fetus and the baby will both die on their own. So why is viability the marker for personhood?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Your slipping more and more into the insults category...this isn't how you want to go down, is it?
Because this isn't murder. This is abortion.
You yourself said, and what I've been talking about this whole time, is that personhood starts when a life becomes viable. In this case, that would be 22 weeks. Therefore, this 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. So given these are human beings, according to your own logic, again, why can they be murdered by a women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Ok, lets play with your false comparison.
Ok, I don't have a right to be aware of any person's appendectomy. Now let me guess, you are going to conflate abortion to surgery to try and make your false point that we don't have a right to know what's happening in abortion.
Again, abortion involves the murder of an unborn baby, regular surgery does not. I have a right to have a say in protecting innocent unborn children.
And don't give me the "Don't waffle, answer the question" crap. Very hypocritical of you considering you said "Did you support the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? If you can wander off on tangents then I can. Now answer.
Now answer.
Now answer."
I said "no." Then you didn't respond because it didn't fit your narrative. Typical leftists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Enough with the semantics. For the 4th time...explain why these reasons give you the right to murder another human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I appreciate the civil response :)
People who are pro-choice do not argue that fetuses ought to be killed. They simply argue that people who’re pregnant should have the right to kill them or have them killed if they so desire.
Sure, I would agree on that.
we often deny rights to living organisms, e.g., plants.
I generally make a distinction between plants and the human species.
Either it must have a preference against dying or its death
Can you go more in depth on why this determines whether a fetus has the right to live?
or its death must cause negative externalities
A little confused on this...are you meaning emotional harm/grief for people associated with the person who died?
Until at least 24 weeks, the fetus has no preferences or feelings;
So just to be clear, would this imply you are against abortion after 24 weeks? Also, do newborn babies prefer not to be killed? How do you know?
Animals can feel conscious states and have a preference against dying. Nonetheless, we do not prohibit killing animals. In many instances, we even allow torturing them or killing them for sport. The fetus is clearly less morally significant than most nonhuman animals, seeing as it does not experience conscious states for at least the first 5.5 months of pregnancy.
I urge we stay away from animal rights, as that is a whole other topic. I would contend humans are intrinsically more valuable than animals. But I hope we don't conflate humans and animals in this argument.
You might respond to this by suggesting that the fetus has the potential to be conscious and therefore is entitled to rights. However, that argument proves too much, because it would also entail that (1) everyone has an obligation to have children
How would this entail everyone has an obligation to have children?
(2) even sperm and eggs are entitled to rights, since they have the potential to become a life.
False. The difference is that sperm and egg are not lives. They can potentially make up a life when combined, but when by themselves they are not. In addition, you say
potential to be conscious
Consciousness is not the same as life. You did not say the potential to become life. In fact, you already said
The fact that the fetus is a life
This means that we are in agreement the fetus is already a life, not a potential life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Distinction. An appendectomy does not involve the killing of an unborn baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Do you always avoid the question when your position logically crumbles? Don't fall into one of those leftists, please.
I haven't found a single dictionary definition for "critically life-altering event." Can you give me one and site it please?
Again, explain why these reasons give you the right to murder another human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Ah yes, keep dodging the question. Doesn't help when you keep going back to insults as your argument when it logically crumbles.
A critically life altering event doesn't have to be bad. It can be either. Again, explain why these reasons give you a right to murder another human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Please explain a "critically life altering event," and explain why those reasons give you a right to murder another human being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Pregnancy is not a critically life altering event. There is nothing life-altering about it. The BOP is on you to prove that it is- not on me to prove something that is essentially non-existent. You can't prove it if it's not there. Having a baby can be a critically life altering event, but that comes with motherhood and raising a child. You don't have to keep the child if you don't want. There is no excuse for killing another human being, unless the women's health is in serious danger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Pregnancy is a critically life altering event
Oh BS. A women being pregnant does not triumph murdering another human being. Most cases it doesn't pose a serious health risk. It may change some things in a women. Maybe you can't do certain things for 9 months. Boo hoo. You don't get the right to murder a human being because of this.
What a stupid thing to say when I've been criticising you the entire thread for doing just this.
Give me one example of when I have insulted you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Personally I just pray that you gain some intellectual integrity. I haven't repeated so much shit and been so strawmanned ever apart from one particular gun nut that inhabits these forums.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
A critically life altering event is extremely rare. Pro-choicers use this argument as representative of the whole abortion argument, when in fact is a very minute percentage of cases. I will repeat,
"Personal freedom is not more morally valuable than a human being."
Literally the overwhelming majority it is not a threat to the women's life or a "critically life altering event." So answer the question at hand and please explain why, in a normal abortion case, a human being can be murdered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
And? Why does it matter? Why can I murder a human being inside the womb, but not outside? Personal freedom is not more morally valuable than a human being. If that is your position, I have nothing else to say. I would just pray that you change your heart to be against murder of innocent children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You yourself were the one who said human life starts when person-hood starts, when a baby is viable. So therefore, babies in the 2nd and 3rd trimester are human beings. Literally the top example of the list you gave me said the women "was not ready for a baby." Yeah, that's convenience. Why do you get to kill another human being because you don't want it? Using your logic, I can kill my 2 year old because I don't want it. They are both human beings, one is inside the womb, one is outside. What's the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Once again, until you can accept the fact that scientifically this is not a tumor, this a life, I will not engage with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
So you believe a small human being is worth a lot less than a mid-age human being that a women can kill a baby out of convenience? They are both human beings, why are you discriminating against the smallest ones?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Abortion isn't any secret. It is a major political topic, so of course people are going to know what the medical procedure is. This is a matter of killing innocent babies, not a "medical procedure."
Again, you are using a dumb argument. If you don't like my position on abortion then argue against, but simply saying you shouldn't know how babies are being killed is a dumb argument that is distracting from the topic at hand. All I hear is feelings, feelings, feelings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The top reasons- out of convenience. Why does that overcome a human beings right to live?
And I don't know why you are making it difficult for yourself to be against 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Like, it's your own logic. We can get to the conception argument in a little bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I am aware of that, but I am talking about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions when the baby IS viable. Don't change the argument. This is what I have been discussing.
So I would definitely say that given sufficient reason all abortion at any stage is permissible
Let's take out rape, incest, and cases that can severely do damage to a women's health. What other sufficient reasons are there that give you the right to murder another human being in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters? What reason is possible that overcomes another human's right to live?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I have a right to know and to have an opinion on killing babies, and how they are tortured and dismembered when they are being killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Unfortunately I see no point in debating scientific facts. Perhaps you should research some more. This is basic biology. We have to accept this is a different individual that has it's unique body and life to have a discussion. Until you accept that fact, I see no point in wasting my time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Ok great, then why aren't you against the legality of most abortion cases?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
For example, the moral value of a fetus and the moral value of a woman's bodily autonomy.
So you believe another human being can be murdered if it changes a women's body chemistry? Why does the right to live have less moral value than a women's health?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Your responses are irrelevant. Maybe you should read what I said.
"If you think it should not be restricted to kill a human being inside the womb, even it has gained personhood, in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, then why can't I kill my 2 year old that has gained personhood?"
You said a person has moral value when it gains personhood. Viability is the marker for personhood, according to you. Therefore, when a baby becomes viable in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, it has gained moral value. So my question is what is the difference between killing a child in the womb that has complete moral value, then killing one outside the womb? If you think killing them inside the womb should not be restricted, then why should killing it outside the womb be restricted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Evidence, evidence, evidence. Can you use even a shred of evidence? All I hear is feelings and whiny nonsense.
Created: