Total posts: 334
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Again, don't keep going back to societal norms and societal morality. Think about it LOGICALLY.
What that sufficient reason might be is anyone's guess however I can be quite certain that the reasons you gave are insufficient.
You have yet to respond to what I've said. I will repeat it "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?"
Forget about legality and society, killing my 2 year old is logically consistent with your position. Care to defend your position?
What that sufficient reason might be is anyone's guess
Exactly. This is the whole problem with your argument. A sufficient reason is subjective and can't be sustained. That's why we must use concrete facts to determine what something is. Life is inherent or its not. You are living, or you are dead. One is living from conception. Philosophical subjective reasons do not work in creating laws. You said just take the most popular idea and use it as the law. That is bogus. That is completely subjective, and just because something is popular does not make it right. Concrete facts are the only way to fix this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Ok, you tell me then, based on what I've said, why is it wrong to kill that 2 year old?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
No no, don't bring up the legality of killing a 2 year old or the societal norms.
We are thinking about this logically. 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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
So you've performed 1200 abortions, WOW.
If you actual read and watched the video, you would see a 2nd trimester abortion explained by Dr. Levatino, who has performed 1,200 of them. You think you know way more than him, which is comically pathetic and stupid at the same time.
Did you support the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
@bmdrocks21
bmrocks: I don't support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. I rarely support wars.
Disgusted: So you support the INNOCENT SLAUGHTER of people in WARS?? WhAT a HyPoCrItE!!
me:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Because murder of a human being without sufficient justification is wrong?
That was sufficient justification though! It was my subjective feelings of why I can murder my 2 year old, because it can't survive on its own and does not have as much moral significance as me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
A blastocyst has no arms legs or head, if only you had the intelligence to reject misogynist propaganda and address the real question.
I find it comical you think you are smarter and know more about abortions than a former abortionist who has performed 1,200 of them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgw4X7Dw_3k&feature=youtu.be
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
ask instead of rambling on and looking like a buffoon
Ok, you tell me, why can't I kill my 2 year old in that example?
Scientific facts are not debatable, so why argue with you about something that literally is objective? All you are showing is that your IQ, if it were channeled into electricity, may be able to toast a piece of bread lightly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
It's in the sense that attaining personhood is when you should apply moral considerations first, then proceed if your reasoning is sufficient.
Ok, so my infant has gained personhood. I have applied moral considerations that it has personhood. I can choose to kill it because it is not viable and therefore can not survive on its own. That reasoning is sufficient, who are you to tell me that my subjective feelings of when I can kill my child are not sufficient.
This is the reasoning that you applied to fetus's. After 22 weeks, when it has gained personhood, the women can choose to kill it based on her own reasoning.
I am using facts for my argument. Life starts at conception. I'm not using subjective feelings to determine when it is ok to kill the baby. Facts don't care about your subjective feelings.
<br>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
They literally crush the skull in almost every abortion. First, they grasp each limb and pull them off hard, one by one. The baby can feel pain. Then, they suck the brains of the baby out and crush the skull. Here is a video explaining it https://youtu.be/jgw4X7Dw_3k
If only you were educated on what goes on during an abortion. Clearly you have no idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The mother. Because it's her body, her womb and she is the ultimate decider.
She can also decide if she wants to kill her 2 year old, according to your reasoning.
Certainly, with your own twisted reasoning, but certainly not with any of mine.
That's based on what you said. I logically followed your reasoning. Want to defend that, or do you concede?
because either you don't understand my positions
Yeah, making 7 tiered logically inconsistent philosophical arguments can do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
It's in the sense that attaining personhood is when you should apply moral considerations first, then proceed if your reasoning is sufficient
Great. So it's all subjective. I can essentially kill my 2 year old because I applied "moral considerations" but after all it can't survive on its own, so that is my reasoning.
That is the problem. Who decided if the reasoning is sufficient? That is all subjective territory and it's nonsense. That's why we have to use concrete facts about life- Something is either alive, or it is not.
We fundamentally disagree about the morality of when a women can kill her baby or not, so I don't think this is going anywhere.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I've already answered when I think personhood starts
I'll assume you said around 22 weeks, since that is when a baby becomes "viable."
can you elaborate what you mean?
You said you don't think abortions should be restricted at any time period in the pregnancy, even though in the 3rd trimester a baby gains "personhood." So if you aren't going to apply the personhood argument to restricting 3rd trimester abortions, then in what sense are you applying the "personhood" argument?
Excuse me, homosapien is the species, human is the family. Upon conception, that organism becomes a part of the human family, hence the name "human life."
So because it may change a women, that gives her the right to kill an innocent life? Do you not believe in the founding of our country that everyone has the "right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You have yet to explain why breathing through the mouth determines moral significance.
Just because the baby is getting its nutrients from the women does not mean it isn't a separate organism. If you refuse to accept the scientific fact that the baby is it's own life and own, unique organism, then I see no point in debating someone who is either ignorant or just intellectually dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
No, the correct answer is to aggregate a consensus on personhood and apply it.
This is just not plausible. There are way too many varying opinions that it is not rational to try and agree on a philosophical concept of "personhood." Disregarding that, when would you say personhood starts and how would you apply it morally, if you are not going to apply it to the abortion argument?
Why does human life start at conception from a purely scientific perspective?
It is a scientific consensus that a new human organism is made at conception through meiosis, with it's own unique DNA and pre-determined body features, etc. We call this the start of "life." Human is simply the species that is assigned to an organism. This is not philosophical matter, just scientific facts. When a human organism comes into existence, it is a part of the human family. I have yet to see you prove that this is not a human. Humans are the only ones left of the homosapiens species, we are the only ones that are not extinct. So, to suggest that "not all homo-sapiens are humans" is just foolish, considering the fact that Humans are the only homosapien, and the life brought into existence by conception is a part of the human family and grows to become a fully formed human.
This is literally just biology dude, there is no agenda here, it is just scientific that life starts from conception.
It hinders her ability to do things for the most part of a year. It changes her body chemistry.
Oh please. Because she can't do certain things for 9 months, that gives her the right to kill a baby? What do you even mean by "it changes her body chemistry?" This seems like a bunch of BS excuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Your entire argument stems around the breathing capabilities of of a fetus and an infant. Why does it matter if the fetus can't breathe through its mouth? Oxygen is delivered through the umbilical cord, so yes fetus's do respire. What about people on breathing machines? Can we kill them too?
Oh, and don't think I missed the point you totally ignored because it doesn't fit your argument--
"The fetus is it's own organism with completely separate DNA and a completely separate body."
If you are going to keep yelling about your feelings, I only get the impression that you are troll who is not worth my time. So if you want to have an actual discussion, I would recommend you put together your thoughts in a factual and coherent way. If this continues, I will not respond. I like to have discussions with people who are rational thinkers and like to engage in civil discussion with whom they disagree with. Look at Dustryder and I's discussion, I like him, we have been civil for the most part, we don't agree, but we are having a civil discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
you sticking your nose into a pregnant womans bodily businesss, without her consent is virtural rape
Actually it is murder to kill an innocent unborn baby, which is worse than rape. It is not the women's business, it is the babies. The baby is a separate human. I am arguing to stop the mass murder of innocent unborn humans.
is not an independent human invidual ergo it is oragnism of the mother
Fact 1) If you are going to debate, you should probably make an attempt to spell correctly.
Fact 2) What do you mean by "organism of the mother?" The fetus is it's own organism with completely separate DNA and a completely separate body.
and take it to heart and find the courage, empathy and rational, logical common sense moral integrity to STOP sticking your nose into pregnant womens bodily business without their consent
Please find the courage to accept this is an innocent baby that was murdered, by ripping off the limbs one by one, and crushing the skull until the brains of the baby come out.
Above all, you should actually find out what happened in an abortion and what is really inside the women before you lecture me about "morality."
<br><br>STOP sticking your nose into pregnant womens bodily business without their consent.
Stop murdering innocent children without their consent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I only care about the initial fetal viability of the fetus to determine personhood
So is it fair to say you are against abortions after around 22 weeks, since that is when a fetus can be "viable (can survive outside the womb)" and therefore gains personhood?
Not all homo sapiens are human beings.
Then what is the fetus? if it is not a human, what is it? You keep dodging the question.
You say it is a philosophical concept, but the problem with this in the abortion argument is that anyone can subjectively determine when a person has moral value. Anyone can subjectively assign moral value to the different stages of life and different conditions people may have, but this ultimately leads to chaos when there is no concrete concept to determine moral value. Thus, the answer to this is use concrete evidence and science. Scientifically, human life starts at conception. You are either a human organism or not. There is no in between.
You are using a philosophical, subjective definition of "human" and conflating it with a concrete definition.
the significant impact on her life from carrying the child through til birth
Which is what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
it's generally about fetal viability
Now you are cherry picking different aspects of viability when in reality they all have the same result.
This has already been answered
Um no, you have been logically inconsistent. You said you are in favor of 3rd trimester abortions, but then said you were against abortions right before birth.
This has been said many, many times but babies can and do significantly impact a mother's life.
If a women does not want her baby, she can set it up for adoption so it does not significantly impact her life. This is no excuse to murder it. This notion also devalues motherhood, which is pretty disingenuous.
you'd know that viability is not the argument which I am using.
That's because you have used like 5 different argument and you switch to other ones when a rebuttal does not fit your argument. You literally said viability is the marker for personhood, so yes viability is the argument you are using. You literally gave it as the definition of personhood.
Because it's not a living human being.
This is anti-science. You conceded it was living, and you said that it is a "homosapien." Humans are literally the only homosapien that isn't extinct. If it is not human, then what is it? It is purely scientifical that the fetus is human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
And why can a women kill that innocent baby just because it is convenient to them? Viability is no argument for when a women can kill her baby. That is a living human being, and why does that have not just less moral value, but so little if any moral value that a women can murder it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
When is the point where you can't abort a baby?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so my takeaway from that is basically "Once you gain personhood, you gain moral value, and once you have personhood it can not be taken away" Correct?
How do newborn infants gain personhood when they can not survive on their own? If viability is the marker, an infant has never gained viability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Bro, gotta be honest, It's very hard to piece together your positions.
You say "viability is not the determination as to whether it is morally ok to kill something" and then you also say "Viability is the marker for personhood. Personhood is what gives moral value"
My interpretation of what you are saying is that in order for someone to gain personhood, they must be viable. But you contradict your own statement by essentially saying "viability is not the determination to morally kill something or not." If viability is what gives personhood, and personhood gives moral value, but then viability is not what gives moral value, then what are you saying??
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Before, you said you are not in support of aborting a baby right before birth. But then you state "That is, the point where the fetus need no longer be attached to the female to live autonomously even if the moment is brief." is what gives the baby moral value. Before birth, the baby is attached to the women. So logically following, you are ok with babies being aborted up until birth.
Viability isn't the issue. Personhood is the issue, with viability being a marker for personhood.
Yes, so viability is the issue lol. You just restated your position. Viability gives a human moral value, correct?
The issue with the fetus being attached to the woman, is that the fetus is literally attached to the woman. This entails all sorts of consequences for the woman.
How so? Why doesn't she give birth to save the babies life, and set it up for adoption if she truly can not take care of it?
And again, infants are not viable life. They can not survive on their own. Neither can elderly people on assisted living. Are you ok with killing them as well as infants?
And to be clear, I am talking about aborted babies. Here is a picture without the blood(less graphic) of an aborted baby. Literally what they do an in abortion, this is not feelings, just straight facts, is they take a tool and grasp the babies limbs, one by one, and pull them off. The baby can feel pain. They crush the skull and the brains of the baby are sucked out, and then they remove all the skull pieces. Let me ask you, as compassionately as possible, truly, in your heart, are you ok with that? Does a women have a right to kill that baby?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
That is, the point where the fetus need no longer be attached to the female to live autonomously even if the moment is brief.
Logically following, then you do support killing the child right before it's born. You are being logically inconsistent. If viability is the issue, infants and elderly people are not viable because they can not survive on their own. Why does it matter if its connected to the women? It is its own life, not the women's. Whether infants live a little bit longer is irrelevant. When left to their own means, the fetus and infant and elderly all die.
Plus, fetus's can be "viable" outside the womb at 22 weeks. Logically following your "viability" argument, this means you are against 3rd trimester abortions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so now you are changing from "not viable" to "not viable and a threat to the women"
A couple questions--
1) Why does viability determine moral value?
2) What if the unborn baby is not a threat to the women?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You said you draw the line at viability. Are you going to answer my questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You said you are ok with 3rd trimester abortions.
Both fetus's and infants do not have viable lies in which they can survive on their own, same w/ elderly people in assisted living. Should we kill them too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
nobody types <br>, it is a glitch with the text coding that DART needs to fix. I'll contact Mike. Nice argument btw :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
because there is the matter of dignity of life which should apply to all human beings
And there it is. So then what is the difference when you say you are ok with murdering children 2 minutes before they are born, but that they suddenly get "the dignity of life" when they are born? What magically happens to make the newborn baby have dignity of life, but didn't have just 15 seconds ago still in the mother?
<br>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Just to be clear, you believe in infanticide because their lives are not viable and they can't survive on their own?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
If it is truly your position that we can kill a born baby, then I have nothing more to discuss and we'll find no common ground. Pretty disgusting you think you can murder a baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You said you don't know when personhood starts and it can't be defined. How then can you claim aborting unborn babies is ok because they don't have "personhood," but you yourself don't even know what personhood is? When do you draw the line?
Answer these questions- Is it ok to abort a 1st trimester baby?
-Is it ok to abort a 2nd trimester baby?
-is it ok to abort a 3rd trimester baby?
-is it ok to kill a born baby?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You have not. Not once. If you truly did, then type it out again. But you haven't. Don't be foolish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
If you believe that picture of an aborted baby is a tumor, you are seriously messed up. If you reject the scientific fact that an unborn baby is a human life, then when does life start and what magically happens to make it a life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
<br> is a glitch that has been going one, it is a problem with the coding. It means line break.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Nothing about this is religious. Religion was not brought up once. What I said was purely scientific. It is a scientific fact that the fetus inside the women is a human life. I thought leftists believe in climate change, how did you suddenly get all anti-science?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I don't determine what a women is killing. Science does. Science says that is a living human being growing inside of the women. Who gives her the right to murder another human being? The picture I showed was not a tumor. You have to be a fool to say that. Please, backup your statement that this is not a human being with scientific facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I don't care about word games. You can look it up, fetus means small child in latin.
The women does not have the authority to murder a human being. What gives her the authority to murder another life?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Keep avoiding the facts. This is not the body of a women. This is the body of an innocent child. Why do you keep refusing to accept the scientifically proven fact that this is a human life?
Created:
Posted in:
No one has the right to choose this https://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/national/grand%20jury%20report%20image.png
No one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Everything what I said is factual. It is factual that there is a human life inside the women. That is scientific. There is a living human being inside. No one has the right to kill that. No one. No one has the right to choose this-
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Did you watch the video? Do you call that child being ripped apart an "unwanted growth?" Just disgusting you would say that. You are supporting the murder of an innocent human being. And somehow a women's convenience is more valuable than another human's life that you would murder it? Despicable, just absolutely disgusting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
No one decides on personhood. Personhood is the all encompassing label of what a person is.
That does not answer the question. What are the characteristics of personhood? At what point does one gain personhood?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Haha he keeps dodging your answer lmao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What you mean to say is "a woman's rights",
The baby's life is more valuable than a women's convenience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Personhood
So your argument seems to be a baby must obtain personhood to become morally valid. What is personhood?
Created: