Total posts: 334
Posted in:
Please be educated on abortions. Caution: This is suggestive and disturbing content
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
When is a living human considered alive?
The slippery slope here is we are assigning different moral values for different stages of life. The bottom line is- it's either living or it's not. An unborn baby has inherent value. People have inherent value. If we assign moral values to different people, then we get caught up in things like babies who are 3 months old, disabled people in wheelchairs, and elderly people in nursing homes who we could say don't have as much moral value as an adult. Using this notion, this means nobody has inherent value, and thus the moral values of humans are compared to one another, and ultimately used as an argument for why we can murder people because they have less moral value than someone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
A zygote is a member of the homo sapiens species.
"the species to which all modern human beings belong" that would be the human species my guy
A zygote does not have the characteristics of human beings and is therefore not of human life.
What are the characteristics of human beings?
The point here is that even if you don't consider it a human being, if left in the natural course of things, it will grow and develop into a fully formed human. This has much more value than a women's convenience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so your whole post is centered around your opinion that a zygote is not a human life. You conceded a zygote is a life. So the only part left is the "human." Human describes the species of which the unborn baby is. It is of the human species. Therefore it is a human life. If it is not "human," then what species is it?
Created:
Posted in:
And to think 60 million babies have been murdered...just absolutely disgusting. A modern day holocaust.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
It is a human organism. It is alive. It is living.
There are 3 states of being. Inanimate, dead, and alive.
An unborn baby is not inanimate. It is not dead, otherwise it wouldn't be in human development. The only possible state is alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Saving a life with guns in most cases does not require another one to be ended. In most cases an injury to the criminal or brandishing the gun does the life-saving. Plus, even if the criminals life is ended, it was done justly and would not be murder. We are saving innocent lives, not guilty ones.
Okay, I'm not pro-life. I never claimed to be.
Then everyone is not pro-life. WTH is your point? You come into an abortion argument and claim I am not pro-life. This is about pro-life and pro-choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
No one decides on personhood
Ok, when does personhood start?
That would be a homo sapiens zygote.
..which is an early form of life. Life is defined scientifically, it is not an opinion. "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization." Life- "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms." A new human organism is made at conception. Again, this is scientifically proven. You are simply uneducated if you don't know when life starts, and should not be making abortion arguments.
Let me ask this- What makes an unborn baby have less value than a born baby that you can murder it? You have yet to answer this. This is frankly all I care about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
at the end of the day, you are still deciding that some people should die.
This is logically incorrect. If much more people are being saved by guns than taken, than that creates a net gain in lives. More people would die if guns were banned, so again this just does not logically follow through.
By your logic if you are not in favor of a knife or car ban than you are still deciding that some people should die, so therefore you are not pro life either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
No, you shifted the argument to legality when you argued that fetuses and children have the same rights.
I apologize if I confused you. I never meant "rights" in the legal sense, only the moral.
It's not been conferred person-hood.
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Who decides this? What makes person-hood?
You are wrong. I brought evidence that you are wrong
All you said is life is philosophical and not scientific. How is this evidence?
If you reject that life starts at conception, then tell me, what is that unique 'thing' that has its own DNA at conception? When does life start?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
If you wish to talk about rights, fetuses do not have the same rights as babies. Whether it is moral or not is entirely irrelevant
You completely shifted the argument to legality. Legality does not matter to me. Morality does. The government does not decide what is moral and what is not. This whole argument is based around morality. You have yet to answer why an unborn baby has less moral significance than a born one. What is the difference? If you are not able to answer a question as simple as this, then you have a very weak argument.
Science cannot answer when human life starts
This is not even about a political opinion. It is simply a fact that life starts at conception. A unique life, with unique DNA, separate from anyone else in the entire world. At conception, a human organism is created. If you are not able to accept the science of this, then you are simply wrong and I will stop this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If you are going to reject a fact and be that closed minded then I have no desire to discuss further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Abortion of a fetus does not carry the same penalties as murder of a baby. QED they do not have the same rights.
Just because something is legal does not make it moral. Slavery was legal, was it moral? The 2 are disconnected. I guess black people do not have the same rights as white people since slavery was legal, following your logic.
The start of human life is a philosophical question not a scientific question.
Umm, no, human life starts at conception. A fact is not philosophical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Guns have statistically been used to save far more lives than they take. This is because of self-defense and DGU's. You just don't have an argument right now, it doesn't seem you came very prepared.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
That's rather the point of something that is self-evidently true. Imagine if I were to state that 1 + 1 = 2 and you were to badger me for proof that 1 + 1 = 2.
It's rather foolish you would lie to yourself. It is highly contested for debate whether an unborn baby has the same rights as a born baby. You acting like it is an incontestable fact is foolish.
Human life scientifically starts at conception. That is just factually incorrect.Oh in that case a fetus is not a human being or a human life
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
We all know what you mean is that if you are pro gun then you are supporting a policy that kills people. Pro-life means you are in favor of life. You said I can't be pro-life. This logically means I am against life because I am against guns. Whether the policies I support will take away more lives or not, I am pro-life, meaning I am favor of life and have good intentions.
This is bread and butter, but since you brought it up I will put some basic framework down for my arguments...
1) Guns save more lives than they take
2) Gun bans have proven not to be effective in reducing the overall murder rates
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I would love to have a discussion about guns. Not particularly intriguing though when you just claimed I am ok with children being murdered because I have a different opinion on the gun problem. If we are going to have a discussion, you have to at least admit you are wrong about that first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I'm not sure it has a proof because it is so obviously self-evidently true.
You have yet to prove why. You have given no evidence. Saying that it is true without any proof is typically not how you construct an argument. I gave rebuttals, you did not respond.
Why?
Human life is more valuable than if a women's life is hard. You don't get to murder another human being. You have no right to impose your will onto another human being and kill them. That is murder.
If your position is you can murder a baby if life may be hard for the women, then we have nothing more to discuss. I just think that is very sick and despicable, and morally wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Why does a less valuable organism deserve life at the cost of a critically life alterating, damaging and painful event for a more valuable organism?
1) You have yet to prove why it is less valuable and ignored all my rebuttals, and
2) The majority of cases it is not critically life altering. Just because life may be hard does not mean you get to kill a human life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I would appreciate if you let the thread be between me and dustryder, at least when he addresses me as the recipient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
You yourself have that instinct because you immediately decided that the zygote did not have a life, despite your claim that life begins from conception.
The zygote is a life. Life does start from conception. What I meant is that there was nothing happening in the child's life for a funeral to happen.
The common question to save the child or the 5000 embryos is a perfect example of this.
Just because you have an moral instinct or feeling does not mean it is thought through and has moral logic. A moral intuition does not mean it is justifiable. This is a stupid hypothetical that does not prove your point. When a women gets an abortion, the doctor asks if she wants to kill it and she says yes. For argumentative purposes, even if an embryo has less moral value than the 5 year old, it does not mean you get to kill it. Like I said earlier, even if you believe it it not a life, it is a certain potential life, which outweighs a mother's convenience to kill it. How much moral value you attribute the embryo is not the main point here, the point is that the embryo is a life, and one's life has much more value than a women's choice to kill it out of convenience. You don't get to choose to kill a human life, not at any point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Why not?
Being named is not an argument for morality. Many parents do name their children in the early stages, however that takes time and thought in most cases, and this is honestly irrelevant to morality. We don't hold funerals for zygotes because they never had a life in the first place. When one is aborted, it is usually private and their would be nothing to hold a funeral for. Again this is extremely weak evidence, it is not actually evidence for why unborn babies are less than adults. The fundamental difference is the stage of life and time.
I have no idea why
Then it is awfully disgusting to give less moral value to babies than adults when you admit you don't have any evidence for it.
And btw, I'm not telling the women what to do with her body. I'm arguing for the child's body, the child's life. It is separate from the women's. Just because I am not a women does not mean I can't make moral judgements as to whether you can murder a child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
it is obviously true we in general apply less moral value to zygotes than to adults
Life is life. The examples you described are not evidence for morality. You have yet to explain the WHY. Why is a baby at an early stage of development have less moral value than an adult?
<br>
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Neither a zygote or a fetus or any form before birth are children.
From conception, we are a child. Whether it is at an early stage of development does not matter. Humans have different stages of growing. We do not change from human to non human o vice versa.
It is a child. Even linguistically, fetus in Latin means "small child."
The word "another" implies a comparison of lifeforms of equal value, however this is simply not the case.
Expand on what you mean by this please. What makes the unborn baby less of that than anyone else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
All you want to do is reiterate that you think a single cell is a human being therefore it is wrong to terminate it.
A zygote is a life, so of course it is wrong to kill a unique human organism.
Nothing I say will dissuade you from this illogical position.
You haven't even given an argument, so of course a non-existent argument will not persuade me to become pro-choice.
The vast majority of people disagree with you so if you have your heart set on this, you are going to be disappointed.
This is an appeal to authority. Ad-populum fallacy. This does not prove anything.
Again you have continued not to respond to this--
"The argument for you is what constitutes a person. You have to be able to answer this to make determinations on what can be killed and what can't be.
Let's say that it isn't a life or human yet when it is in the womb. It is certainly a potential life, which seems to have much more value than a women's convenience."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you have no issue with killing animals, and you have no issue with killing people. You just think that you should get to decide what the rules around killing should be and no one else should get a say. So yes, you are a massive hypocrite.
Animal rights are a whole other topic. Lets stay on humans. I don't decide what the rules of killing people are. It is simply my opinion that killing is justifiable in circumstances like the death penalty, one one is at fault and guilty for certain violent crimes. I have made it very clear that we should not murder innocent life.
You are not making any arguments for yourself. I will repeat what I have asked for--
" The argument for you is what constitutes a person. You have to be able to answer this to make determinations on what can be killed and what can't be.
Let's say that it isn't a life or human yet when it is in the womb. It is certainly a potential life, which seems to have much more value than a women's convenience."
It is massively hypocritical of you to say I'm a hypocrite for "getting to decide what the rules around killing" are when you are the one arbitrarily deciding, with no evidence, what constitutes a person and why it should be killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
It is not your body, it is the fetus's body. You don't get to choose whether or not to murder a baby just because it is attached to you. Life scientifically starts at conception. Religiously, God says "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
A women's right to health does not overcome another's right to life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So you are a vegan, who strongly disagrees with wars or engaging in self defense? If you are morally opposed to taking any life under any circumstances, then I can at least respect that this is your opinion. I would still disagree with you, but I could respect your argument. However, most of the people I have seen use this argument are the same sort of people who are fully supportive of the US military and executing prisoners. So it is usually just massive hypocrisy.
What does veganism have to do with this? I am talking about human life. I am not morally opposed to taking a life in any circumstance, I believe in the death penalty and due justice. An innocent baby constitutes none of these. An innocent, defenseless baby has done nothing wrong. Abortion is murder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I dislike how you've characterized this. Pregnancy is hard on the mother. It hinders her ability to do things for the most part of a year. It changes her body chemistry. It can have severe complications up to and including death. The ramifications of pregnancy can last beyond the actual birth even if the baby is not kept. I don't think this is fully captured by "A women's convenience".
Just because life may be hard does not mean you get to kill the child.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then what are you doing on an abortion forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Please respond to the other things I said.
The problem I have here is you use "cluster of cells" to devalue the unborn baby's life. It should be recognized as a life, a human organism, not just a random cell. And yes, an embryo is a unique life that has unique DNA. This is purely science. I don't think we should kill something based on whether it is a "human being," as that is a subjective topic with no universal definition. I believe that embryo is a life, which is something defined at the moment of conception. I believe everyone has the right to life, no matter how small or developed they may be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I am not going to bother doing research you will ignore. You have shown no willingness to even read the things i write. You just answer some straw man argument. There is no point trying to discuss this with you as you don't actually care what I say. You will just keep repeating the same lines over and over and attacking straw man arguments.
Because there is no research to prove that a fertilized egg is a cluster of cells. It simply isn't. Cells are completely different from organisms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just saying there is no right or wrong position here, there are definite benefits to society for population controls.
This is an abortion argument. Are you pro-life or pro-choice? To me it is disgusting and degrading to abort children as "population control," when that in of itself is a myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok, let's forget all of these side topics. Tell me, why is regulating oneself the deciding factor in what is human life? It seems that you are totally fine with killing life. The argument for you is what constitutes a person. You have to be able to answer this to make determinations on what can be killed and what can't be.
Let's say that it isn't a life or human yet when it is in the womb. It is certainly a potential life, which seems to have much more value than a women's convenience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Urban congestion is solved with population controls.
Again you have not responded to anything I have said nor have given any evidence for your position. If you want to have a discussion then don't half-ass a feelings argument.
Not only is suggesting we kill babies to "control population" logically wrong, but also very morally wrong. Taking away lives and killing babies is not the way to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That is the religious answer, not the scientific one. At the moment of conception a zygote has none of the characteristics of being a human. It has DNA and is alive. It has no organs, no consciousness, nothing we would recognize as human at all. Once you accept that a cluster of cells is not a human, then you can have a real discussion about when it becomes one. If you insist that a fertilized egg should have all the rights of a human being, then there really is no room to have any discussion.
There is absolutely nothing religious about this. It is completely scientific that life starts at conception. Again, you keep un-intelligently saying that it is a cluster of cells. If you refuse to accept this is a unique organism, then we can't have a discussion. Again, this will become a full grown human being if left unimpeded in the natural course of things. So whether it is a person or not is irrelevant.
A fetus is not able to exist outside of the womb at all. If you removed it, it would almost immediately die. It is not able to maintain it's own basic functions, a baby can.
They would both die. Simple as that. Whether a baby lives a day longer is irrelevant. When left to their own, they both die.
And at the moment of conception it is just a cluster of cells.
This is just factually incorrect. Research before you make an absurd assumption like that.
You clearly have decided that DNA makes something a human.
Correct. You have decided nothing. You don't even know what constitutes human life yet it is your opinion that we can kill innocent children. If we can't answer a basic question of when life begins, then what are you doing deciding that innocent babies can be killed? Life starts at conception. I believe in the right to life. Do you not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
there's not a single person sitting in traffic for hours thinking "if only we had more babies in the world"
So? This does not prove anything. Another feelings argument. This is about murdering innocent children. I would hope you have an actual argument instead of resorting to logical fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You're right, being able to survive is not what constitutes a human. It is part of the definition of being alive. If a life form cannot exist on it's own then it shouldn't be considered a person. And i don't mean being fed. i mean not needing to be connected to another living being to be alive.
Then babies aren't people. It doesn't matter whether its connected to another human being, it is the same thing and same results with a baby. Neither could survive on their own. You could say elderly people needing assistance all the time is essentially like being connected to another living being. This is all the same stuff. Just because you are connected to another human being does not mean your right to life is taken away.
People have been asking this exact question for thousands of years and they will continue asking it for thousands more I am sure, assuming humans still exist that long. Pretending like I need to know the answer to a question no one can answer or I am somehow wrong is a childish argument.
Well no, there is an answer. It is scientific. Life starts at conception. My point is you shouldn't be having a debate about this if you don't even know in your opinion when personhood starts. That is simply foolish. Like I said, science shows us that this is a unique, human life that, already in the first trimester, has begun to develop its own heart, brain, and circulatory system.
Because a fertilized egg has none of the characteristics of being a person. It is just a cluster of cells.
This couldn't be a more false statement. This shows how uneducated and loose a position you have on abortion. A fertilized egg is indeed a person. It has its own, unique DNA, separate from anyone or anything in the world. Saying it is just a cluster of cells is foolish. Again, this is an organism, not PART of the organism.
Because in the 3rd trimester it does have the characteristics of a person. At that point if you were to remove it from the woman it has a chance of being able to survive on it's own.
Why is this the criteria for a person? Just because it is at an early stage of life, where the baby is innocent and vulnerable, does not mean we should kill it. This is discrimination against babies. They have no way to defend themselves. You have no right to take away the baby's life. It is a unique being. NOT a cluster of cells.
I'm not using subjective feelings.
You absolutely are. You are basically guessing when a fetus becomes a person without any evidence to show why or how.
And an acorn will become an oak tree if nature takes it's course. But stepping on an acorn and killing a tree are not the same things. A fetus is could become a person if allowed to progress. If you prevent that progression then a human never comes into existence.
This example is a stupid one, but it actually makes my argument better. An acorn(the egg) does not grow into a tree on its own. If let to the natural course of things, it does nothing. It is only when people take care of it and put it under certain conditions(sperm) does it then grow into an oak tree. In comparison to a fetus, it is not a cell. It is a unique being with unique DNA. Once an egg is fertilized, then by the natural course of things does it grow into a fully grown human. However I generally do not like this example because we are comparing a tree, with no moral significance, to a baby, with tremendous intrinsic value.
The moment an egg is fertilized is when a human comes into existence. This is science. That is when life begins. Please explain to me why this unique baby, an organism different from anything else, should be killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Abortion is a viable form of population control.
This is simply not true. With additional people comes additional creativity and resources. Citing the overpopulation wager by Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich in the 80's, "despite the increase in population (and subsequently demand), commodity prices have actually decreased thanks to increased creativity and production drawn from a larger population base."
Ok, now lets say overpopulation was a real threat, why would we kill of the youngest when we can kill off people who are already proven to be a drain on resources.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
A fetus isn't a complete human. It is unable to survive. It is essentially a parasite.
That is a gross comparison. Being able to survive is not what constitutes a human. Babies can't survive on their own, neither can elderly people who need assistance for everything they do. Should we kill them too? A fetus is a human. Science says so. That is an objective fact.
I don't claim to know the precise moment a fetus becomes a person. I know it is not a person at the moment of conception. I know that it is one the moment it is born. At some point between those 2 moments it became a person. I would argue it is before the 3rd trimester.
Then it is very dangerous territory for you to make moral decisions on the matter of killing innocent babies if you don't even know when person-hood starts. Again I ask you, what constitutes a person and why? How do you know it is not at conception? Why is it before the third trimester? Using subjective feelings on the abortion debate is not a good place to be. This is a life, a baby we are talking about.
Of course it does. An acorn is "an early development" of a tree. But it is not a tree. It is an acorn. It might one day grow into a tree, but it isn't one yet. A fetus is not a person. It might become one some day, but it isn't yet.
First off, an acorn is a tree nut and acorns do not grow into trees lol. The question as to whether this is a baby is an irrelevant one because the bottom line is that this will become a full grown human being if left unimpeded in the natural course of things.
Your example is irrelevant. The person in the coma crossed the threshold to become a person. They gained the rights and protections of a person. A fetus has never been a person. It has not attained personhood.
Again you have not yet even defined personhood. This is relevant because a person in a coma is not thinking or processing anything, like a fetus, but it will when it gets out of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Whether or not you call it a baby at the early stages of development does not matter. Science shows us that this is a unique, human life that, already in the first trimester, has begun to develop its own heart, brain, and circulatory system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I never said killing is always wrong. Plus, abortion is murder and the things you described are killing. There is a difference. Murdering a baby is morally wrong.
A tumor is not an organism, it is abnormal growth of cells. Organisms are living beings, an entity that is complete human, not part of a human like cells. What do you define as a human being? When is the "threshold?" What happens when the baby is in the birth canal to when it is out to make it a "human being?"
An unborn baby is a human being. Just because it is at an early development of life does not mean it is any less.
Think about it like this. If a person is in a coma, let's say for example, 9 months, and is not functioning in the coma but it is going to once its out of the coma, should we kill it?
Created:
Posted in:
Someone prove to me why a human being, an objective life, should be killed.
Created:
Sorry, not interested. I would probably lose sooner or later anyway :)
Created:
Mopac, I understand that and I agree. But what I am saying is you have to have more than that to convince omar. You have to be able to prove that the Bible isn't some made up book. You should also continue to attack the ultimate reality point and post #59.
Created:
-->
@ebuc
I don't think he got it because he's autistic. Just wanted to let you know if you didn't already.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You have to give evidence you know. Explain why It is not the Islamic god or another god. Omar is looking for evidence, while your approach is more philosophical(which is fine), you also have to be able to explain yourself.
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I have no idea why you think that post is so great. It's literally a normal post that has no more significance than any other of your posts.
I like post #59.
"A person with no identity resorts to parroting the same thing over and over expecting to be correct or mean anything"
Sounds almost like you spouting that god does not exist over and over.
I was not going to intervene, but I will give omar a suggestion. When mopac suggests you be open to know what Christians believe and what he believes, don't respond in a closed-minded manner and keep saying things like 'the bible is where you get the information about God' or 'God isn't real so what you say is irrevelant.' Ask mopac what he believes, why he believes, and keep an open mind to his ways instead of dismissing those opportunities. Maybe you could actually learn something or understand more.
Created: