Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-21-2010, 12:47 AM   #76
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
This is me speaking from an ethical stand point, not a practical one. It is not asinine to assume that people are irresponsible with birth control. There are some stupid fucking people out there that do nothing to prevent a pregnancy. It is very common to hear something like "just get an abortion," not because it would cause extreme financial hardship, but simply because it is inconvenient. That's bullshit and it pisses me off because I know for a fact that such things do happen. It doesn't matter what percentage of women are like this. You wouldn't let criminals go unpunished just because most people don't break the law, would you?
Quote:
So you would force women to carry to term just because you think they're stupid? That they were irresponsible? Because people take it too lightly?
Quote:
If they were able to have safely have children, yes, I would. If you don't want children but want to have sex, you should practice contraception. That's not an opinion of stupid or irresponsibility.
Quote:
Its nice that you set standards for others that you yourself will never have to live up to.
Quote:
I can't practice contraception because I'm a man? Seriously?
Quote:
You can't give birth, hell you've never even had a period, you can't pretend like carrying to term and putting a kid up for adoption is a walk through a park and you're a selfish bitch if you can't do that. You'll never have to worry about carrying a child, so its piss easy for you to create these standards.
What standards are you talking about, exactly? I maintain that it's not hard to practice contraception, however successful that it may or not be. Are you talking about carrying a child to term and giving it up? Because I already know what decision I would make. My personal feelings demand nothing less. Yes, it would suck. Yes, I would be worried. But I would still do it. A woman who has never given birth has as much perspective on the experience of pregnancy as I do. I don't think your point that I am a man is good enough.

I will, however, withdraw that my standards are for everyone. My concept of right and wrong is strictly my own, and it was pretty arrogant of me to expect complete strangers to conform to me.

Quote:
Now, as to you being squeamish on the "a fetus is an infant" issue. There is no evidence that can back this up. Like I said before, they aren't conscious or sentient yet. Depending on how early the abortion is taking place, it might not even have limbs or what not.
No evidence to back up that a fetus is alive? It fits the very definition of life.

Quote:
–noun
1.
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
But that's not enough, because if I respected life on a microscopic scale, I would be a raving idiot. That is why we elevate people over animals.

Obviously a fetus doesn't have the faculties to approach anything near sentience, but I don't feel that is relevant. A fetus is an infant in an earlier stage of development, an infant is a child in an earlier stage of development, so on and so forth. What, other then that, distinguishes an infant from a child concerning sentience? The child is more developed, but only because it has had the opportunity to grow, and learn. Because it was allowed to live and continue it's natural, and inevitable, development.

Quote:
I'm gonna guess religion. "No atheists in a fox-hole" right?

You're in the service, right? Have you had to confront the possibility of your own mortality lately? Maybe you just got back from deployment/might be deployed sometime in the forseeable future?

That shit will get a man thinking about souls and what is or is not alive, hence why there are so many deathbed conversions.

Anyway, just a late night, sorta-drunk guess.
I have faced my own mortality only in hindsight, and I have another deployment looming over me next summer. I have never had what could be called a religious experience.

Besides, that omnipresent fetus in the sky couldn't be nearly kind enough to forgive the utter bullshit that is conversion because the alternative is worse. If It is, then it needs to be aborted because of it's biblical retardation.

Anyway, I'm going to crash. Work is fast approaching. I'll be happy to continue this tomorrow.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 02:50 AM   #77
ape descendant
 
ape descendant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Smexyville, Colorado
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
A woman who has never given birth has as much perspective on the experience of pregnancy as I do. I don't think your point that I am a man is good enough.
This is silliness, as a woman who hasn't given birth, may have actually been pregnant to whatever term and lost the baby for whatever reason. As a man you will probably never ever know at all... and there's nothing wrong with that, because as different people we tend to have different life experiences. However I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to leave the decisions regarding a woman's body and what may or may not be growing inside her up to her and not to be left up to courts, judges and juries who know and care nothing of a woman's life, health, goals, dreams and family.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
No evidence to back up that a fetus is alive? It fits the very definition of life.

But that's not enough, because if I respected life on a microscopic scale, I would be a raving idiot. That is why we elevate people over animals.

Obviously a fetus doesn't have the faculties to approach anything near sentience, but I don't feel that is relevant. A fetus is an infant in an earlier stage of development, an infant is a child in an earlier stage of development, so on and so forth. What, other then that, distinguishes an infant from a child concerning sentience? The child is more developed, but only because it has had the opportunity to grow, and learn. Because it was allowed to live and continue it's natural, and inevitable, development.
I would not begin to make the argument that even a fertilized egg isn't a human life... that is just silly. It certainly has human DNA...

But there is one huge point, from fertilization to birth the baby exists within a woman, who is already here, already has a life and body of her own. And it is undeniable, that pregnancy from start to finish happens in a woman's body.

My biggest problem is that LEGALLY redefining "person" from the beginning of biological development, conflicts with the right of the actual person (the mother) to make important medical decisions for herself.

Also, with a stance that seems to be rather "fertilized egg = actual person", I would like to let ya know that there are forms of contraception that keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall are these also wrong? If not, where would you draw the line? The reason I bring this up is to help illustrate what an ugly, messy, emotionally charged, grey area we're really dealing with.

My last point being, this; I would rather every one have free and safe access to abortion, than to have even one victim of ****, incest, abuse or any form of sexual attack that I am unaware of, to have to re-live her horrible experience in a court of law BEGGING a judge and jury believe her and grant her permission, BEFORE she's able to rid herself of a child, conceived against her will, in pain and hatred.

Mom's life and natural development come first... so really since its her life at stake.. it should be her choice as to how to handle the pregnancy (prenatal care, possible VBAC) or terminate it (if necessary). These personal decisions should not be made by lawyers and judges who most likely wouldn't even be acquaintances with the woman in question.
__________________
******

Be Kind
ape descendant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 07:39 AM   #78
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
This is silliness, as a woman who hasn't given birth, may have actually been pregnant to whatever term and lost the baby for whatever reason. As a man you will probably never ever know at all... and there's nothing wrong with that, because as different people we tend to have different life experiences. However I am of the opinion that it is appropriate to leave the decisions regarding a woman's body and what may or may not be growing inside her up to her and not to be left up to courts, judges and juries who know and care nothing of a woman's life, health, goals, dreams and family.
That's not exactly what I meant. I guess a better way to word it would be "A woman who has never been pregnant doesn't know what it's like to be pregnant, either. A female judge or member of a jury could easily share the same perspective as me. But you're right. I think what matters is whether or not people make their own personal, and individual perspective into a law.

Quote:
But there is one huge point, from fertilization to birth the baby exists within a woman, who is already here, already has a life and body of her own. And it is undeniable, that pregnancy from start to finish happens in a woman's body.

My biggest problem is that LEGALLY redefining "person" from the beginning of biological development, conflicts with the right of the actual person (the mother) to make important medical decisions for herself.
You're right, again. The fetus isn't exactly a symbiont in the relationship. A woman still has the right to her body, her life, her happiness, and removing the fetus from her body and allowing it to develop elsewhere is the only way to maintain the rights of both parties. But I'm sure some women would still be opposed to this and I'm not well read about the subject, so I won't pretend that any arguments to support their opposition are invalid.

Quote:
Also, with a stance that seems to be rather "fertilized egg = actual person", I would like to let ya know that there are forms of contraception that keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall are these also wrong? If not, where would you draw the line? The reason I bring this up is to help illustrate what an ugly, messy, emotionally charged, grey area we're really dealing with.
I don't think it's wrong, no. I consider that more along the lines of castration. From my understanding of the science, that is the instance of a woman changing her own body, which is well within her rights, to not support any children that could be conceived before they even exist. In my mind, it's the same as being born into a hostile environment that cannot support life.

There was something else that I wanted to express, but it escapes me now. I'll think about it at work.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 10:43 AM   #79
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
That's not exactly what I meant. I guess a better way to word it would be "A woman who has never been pregnant doesn't know what it's like to be pregnant, either. A female judge or member of a jury could easily share the same perspective as me. But you're right. I think what matters is whether or not people make their own personal, and individual perspective into a law.
But most if not all women knows whats in store for her if she does get pregnant, more intimately than a man knows. As a man you don't have to worry about it at all, most you gotta worry about is knocking some woman up and even then she's the one who's gotta carry the kid, and most likely care for it. Most women worry. I'd say most women have at least had a pregnancy scare in their lives, and have gone through measures to make sure it doesn't happen, as unreliable as they might be in her circumstances.

Quote:

You're right, again. The fetus isn't exactly a symbiont in the relationship. A woman still has the right to her body, her life, her happiness, and removing the fetus from her body and allowing it to develop elsewhere is the only way to maintain the rights of both parties. But I'm sure some women would still be opposed to this and I'm not well read about the subject, so I won't pretend that any arguments to support their opposition are invalid.
Where would you keep the fetus, in a box?
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 10:46 AM   #80
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Where would you keep the fetus, in a box?
Shit Doctor, that tomato, for the tomato box in your office was TERRIBLE.

I mean it tasted AWFUL.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 11:40 AM   #81
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
But most if not all women knows whats in store for her if she does get pregnant, more intimately than a man knows. As a man you don't have to worry about it at all, most you gotta worry about is knocking some woman up and even then she's the one who's gotta carry the kid, and most likely care for it. Most women worry. I'd say most women have at least had a pregnancy scare in their lives, and have gone through measures to make sure it doesn't happen, as unreliable as they might be in her circumstances.
Wait, what? I really hope you're making generalizations of men, and not speaking about me specifically.

Quote:
Where would you keep the fetus, in a box?
A microwave safe container, obviously.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 12:00 PM   #82
PortraitOfSanity
 
PortraitOfSanity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 2,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj_goku View Post
adoption is a plot bi the nwo to maek us less able 2 resist them when they come.
Go to Deaman's tin-foil hat circle jerk party. I'm sure you two would get along great...
__________________
You should talk you fugly, cat bashing, psychopathic urinal on two legs...
-Jack_the_knife

I don't hate you. Saying I hate you would be like saying I hate a dog with no legs trying to cross a busy freeway.
-Mr. Filth
PortraitOfSanity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 12:08 PM   #83
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Wait, what? I really hope you're making generalizations of men, and not speaking about me specifically.
I am. Or, if you are concerned about getting pregnant someday, let me put your mind at ease.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 12:52 PM   #84
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by ape descendant View Post
As a man you will probably never ever know at all...
I love the word "probably" in this.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 02:49 PM   #85
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Sorry I had to ask, but I didn't understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that:

because men are not apprehensive about getting a woman pregnant nearly as much as a woman is about getting pregnant,

and because men will never be able to physically carry a pregnancy,

and will never have to worry about the consequences of our actions because we are not expected to provide and care for a child,

any opinion we hold concerning the matter should not carry weight?
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 08:09 PM   #86
ape descendant
 
ape descendant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Smexyville, Colorado
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I don't think it's wrong, no. I consider that more along the lines of castration. From my understanding of the science, that is the instance of a woman changing her own body, which is well within her rights, to not support any children that could be conceived before they even exist. In my mind, it's the same as being born into a hostile environment that cannot support life.
Earlier you said

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Obviously a fetus doesn't have the faculties to approach anything near sentience, but I don't feel that is relevant. A fetus is an infant in an earlier stage of development, an infant is a child in an earlier stage of development, so on and so forth. What, other then that, distinguishes an infant from a child concerning sentience? The child is more developed, but only because it has had the opportunity to grow, and learn. Because it was allowed to live and continue it's natural, and inevitable, development.
Its funny, how you're willing to draw the line at conception, even though at fertilization the DNA for the potential person exists... and their "natural, and inevitable, development" has already begun. During it's journey to the place where it will burrow into the lining the fertilized egg becomes a blastocyst... part of it will become baby, part of it, placenta. A blastocyst is a blastocyst before and after it burrows into the endometrial lining. The only real difference is where the little guy is at the time...

I guess a layered sandwich of cells isn't as cuddly as a second trimester fetus. Ah well...
__________________
******

Be Kind
ape descendant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 12:31 AM   #87
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
What about in instances of Parthenogenesis, where the DNA of the opposite sex, or even external DNA, is not required for fertilization? Is that to say that when a woman's ova are present, she is already pregnant because it could naturally occur?

You said earlier that it's a gray area, and it really is. It doesn't even matter that I never said I considered a fertilized egg to be human. I just tried to answer a snap question with my limited understanding of the science, so please do not mock my ignorance without first educating me.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 11:16 AM   #88
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Ya know, I've seen alot of people throwing around "ethics" and "Ethics classes" as to why they're now pro-life.

I just wanted to point out that this is absolute hogwash. The only ethical position one can really take in this debate is to be pro-choice.

I've already touched on this, but let me break it down for you:

Either:

1) A Fetus /= A baby and has zero value when compared to a baby.

2) A Fetus < A baby (For example 8 Feti = 1 baby etc.)

3) A Fetus = A baby.

and

4) A baby < Any other human life

5) A baby > Any other human life

6) A baby = Any other human life

One really only has two choices here, which most would consider ethical. Either you believe #1 and #6, or you believe #3 and #6.

If you feel that a fetus has some fraction of a babies worth, you get into the tricky waters of putting a price tag and an exchange rate on the value of a human life (because that's the only way this thinking can logically lead). "Exactly how many feti to the baby and why?" and similarly "How many babies to the woman?" Under this logic it would be morally acceptable to sacrifice a certain number of women in order to save the life of a baby, or a certain number of babies in order to save the life of a woman. I think most people would agree that this is a monstrous line of thinking.

The ethical waters are further muddied by adding in economic concerns like the afore mentioned "It's okay if the child would bring a serious financial burden on the family". As I have previously shown this inevitably leads to ascribing a cash value to a baby, and then inevitably to a woman. As in: A woman may only have an abortion if the yearly cost of raising a baby exceeds the yearly income of her family by "X" amount, therefore a baby is worth exactly the cost of raising it to age 18.

Once again: Monstrous.

Therefore the only exchange rates that can be ethically applied are either 0:1 or 1:1. You must have the operating principal that either: A fetus is either not equivalent in any way to a human life, or it is worth exactly the same as a human life.

In the case of the latter, you run into a major ethical problem: As Saya pointed out, prohibition of abortion results in a great deal of human deaths, largely due to labor complications, and complications brought on by illegally obtained, unsanitary abortions, to say nothing of the negative effect an unwanted child has on the woman, her family, and society as a whole (for instance the article I linked shows a causal relationship between legalized abortions and a major decline in violent crime and strongly implies a causal relationship with the inverse)

Now combine this with the dicey legal and ethical issues involved in forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term.

Now combine this with the only conclusion one can come to if one believes in the 1:1 exchange rate: Abortion is murder and therefore genocide on a scale beyond anything we have ever seen. From 1973 - 1945 45 million legal abortions have occured. when only six million people died in the Holocaust

Therefore, if you are Pro-Life and believe that "Abortion is Murder, and a Fetus is a baby" you must either:

a) Immediately become a militant revolutionary (Because now America, to say nothing of the rest of the world, has exceeded the evils of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol-pot and all of histories greatest monsters combined, many MANY times over. You need to be killing abortion doctors, bombing clincis, and killing lawyers, women, and Supreme court justices. You need to weigh the deaths and compulsion of tens of thousands of women, the deaths of all those who appose you, and the deaths of those who die as a direct result of the increase in violent crime your actions cause against the deaths of the wholesale slaughter of the unborn, and find that the ends (the saving of infant lives) justify the means (the murders of your otherwise innocent friends and relatives who are pro-choice)

or

b) Turn your back on the most horrific sin and terrible Genocide the world has ever seen; because surely legalized abortion is worse than anything even our most pessimistic visions of sci-fi distopian futures, and you are living it.

Both of these positions are massively unethical. The former demands that one kill millions of otherwise innocent people in order to save millions of potential people, and the latter emphatically makes you worse than the people who looked the other way during the holocaust.

The ONLY ETHICAL OPTION is to conclude that fetuses are IN NO WAY equivalent to a baby, and that no amount of fetuses will ever be worth the life of an infant, a mother, or any other human life and focus your efforts on social reforms, sex education, and defense of a woman's right to choose.

Thus:

Logically and ethically speaking, pro-choicers are in the clear, and all pro-lifers are either ignorant or complete and utter monsters.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 11:43 AM   #89
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Shit, that should read 1975-2005 not 1945. I was just thinking about WW2.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 11:56 AM   #90
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Haha, once you again, I am compelled to spend another beautiful afternoon on the computer. For this, you are a god damned twat. The most irritating part is that that is such a fucking logical, thought-out, argument that I suspect I am touching upon the presence of madness to even think about refuting it.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 01:56 PM   #91
ape descendant
 
ape descendant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Smexyville, Colorado
Posts: 2,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
What about in instances of Parthenogenesis, where the DNA of the opposite sex, or even external DNA, is not required for fertilization? Is that to say that when a woman's ova are present, she is already pregnant because it could naturally occur?

You said earlier that it's a gray area, and it really is. It doesn't even matter that I never said I considered a fertilized egg to be human. I just tried to answer a snap question with my limited understanding of the science, so please do not mock my ignorance without first educating me.
It is silly to bring up parthenogenesis, as it only happens to humans in fairy tales. It sometimes, however, happens in some species of sharks.

It is a grey area, and the point of my previous post was to point out just how grey it really is. I am not mocking you.

Darling, your ignorance is your own fault, your education your own responsibility. An abundance information is at your fingertips waiting to be learned.
__________________
******

Be Kind
ape descendant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 02:43 PM   #92
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by ape descendant View Post
It is silly to bring up parthenogenesis, as it only happens to humans in fairy tales. It sometimes, however, happens in some species of sharks.

It is a grey area, and the point of my previous post was to point out just how grey it really is. I am not mocking you.

Darling, your ignorance is your own fault, your education your own responsibility. An abundance information is at your fingertips waiting to be learned.
I know that it's not a valid argument to mention something that is extremely unlikely to occur. I think it's absurd to happen, too, but technically it has been observed, however unscientifically. My point was that, just as a virgin marry may or may not happen, so is true that an over-the-counter contraceptive may or may not affect implantation. Obviously, the comparison is a bit sketchy because one is significantly more likely to occur, but it was the best thing I could think of to illustrate what I was trying to say.

Also, parthenogenesis is not exclusive to sharks. I remember reading about it a long time ago and thinking it was interesting as hell. I think wikipedia has a cool blurb about it.

And I apologize if I appeared overtly hostile. I misinterpreted what you said.

And I agree that my ignorance is my own fault. To be fair, I only have so many hours in the day to learn, and there are so many things that I think are just fascinating... but still it is a personal responsibility to not only execute that learning, but to prioritize it. I just don't like being the brunt of insults for something I haven't gotten around to doing for a valid reason. Apparently that's not the case, so disregard my last.

I guess you agree that couples who claim ignorance about contraception don't have an excuse for getting pregnant?
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 04:39 PM   #93
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Haha, once you again, I am compelled to spend another beautiful afternoon on the computer. For this, you are a god damned twat. The most irritating part is that that is such a fucking logical, thought-out, argument that I suspect I am touching upon the presence of madness to even think about refuting it.
Damn right.

There are a few problems with it, but really, it just needs some tweeking and some less inflammatory language and maybe I'll bring it before congress.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 05:10 PM   #94
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
Despanan just won the pro-choice debate. Game. Set. Match.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 05:14 PM   #95
Catch
 
Catch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bliss
Posts: 4,374
One time I was in Kansas and an orginization paid to have a huge billboard put up that basically threatened the life of anyone willing to get an abortion.

That was threatening. Every other year Utah is trying to make some ground for the pro-life whatever. People vote. It passes. The Supreme Court kills the bill and so goes life.
__________________
I Like Cheese!
Catch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 05:45 PM   #96
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite View Post
Despanan just won the pro-choice debate. Game. Set. Match.
I know I'm printing it out. Sad not every pro choice debate turns out so nicely.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 06:33 PM   #97
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
I just wanted to point out that this is absolute hogwash. The only ethical position one can really take in this debate is to be pro-choice.
The only reason you can say that is because you maintain that a fetus has zero value in comparison to a baby.

To think this you must have a clear definition of what a human is, and is not. When humans are looked at in comparison to every other known species, the only thing that irrefutably separates us is our DNA. Not even such concepts as self-awareness, emotion, problem-solving, social interaction, and language are distinctly human. Even then, they are not all demonstrated in humans until sufficient biological and psychological development has occurred. For example, infants less then 18 months old generally fail to demonstrate self-awareness via the mirror test. The problem, though, is that after conception, everybody has human DNA.

To disagree is to say "This stage of development is less human then this one." If you can't even look at it from a biological stand point, how are you to logically define the value of a infant as more then 0? They are no more capable of demonstrating self-reliance, independent thought, reasoning, problem solving, ect, then a fetus. Under the conditions that a 0:1 value dictates, a fully grown chimpanzee is a more productive member to human society.

I suggest the explanation for why 1:1 isn't immediately concluded in militant dissidence as the only solution as you suggest, and why 0:1 is rationalized is simple human nature. Cognitive dissonance, in this instance.

And for the record: I'm not pro-life anymore, even though I think 1:1. My irrational rationalization tells me something I think is irrelevant to this post.

Anyway, that's about all I can think of. If you shoot it down, I promise I'll drop it until I can think of a better argument... which I don't imagine will be soon, because right now I feel New Vegas is more important then dead babies. Or ever, because you are much better at this then I.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 06:41 PM   #98
KontanKarite
 
KontanKarite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Harlem
Posts: 6,909
Blog Entries: 1
Versus, Despanan NEVER implied that a fetus was NOT human life. He said a fetus, even though it is human life, is NOT equal to a baby or any other developed post-birth stage.

We're not saying a fetus is a praying mantis or even a fly or even not alive, we're just saying that it's value is 0% compared to a fully developed human being. AKA Abortion IS NOT MURDER.
__________________
No Gods. No Kings.

Not all beliefs and ideas are equal.
KontanKarite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 06:42 PM   #99
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Except that a baby is not fully developed. It is just developed past the need to be carried by it's mother. By that logic, a baby is worth 0% of an adult.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2010, 07:02 PM   #100
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
The only reason you can say that is because you maintain that a fetus has zero value in comparison to a baby.

To think this you must have a clear definition of what a human is, and is not. When humans are looked at in comparison to every other known species, the only thing that irrefutably separates us is our DNA. Not even such concepts as self-awareness, emotion, problem-solving, social interaction, and language are distinctly human. Even then, they are not all demonstrated in humans until sufficient biological and psychological development has occurred. For example, infants less then 18 months old generally fail to demonstrate self-awareness via the mirror test. The problem, though, is that after conception, everybody has human DNA.

To disagree is to say "This stage of development is less human then this one." If you can't even look at it from a biological stand point, how are you to logically define the value of a infant as more then 0? They are no more capable of demonstrating self-reliance, independent thought, reasoning, problem solving, ect, then a fetus. Under the conditions that a 0:1 value dictates, a fully grown chimpanzee is a more productive member to human society.

I suggest the explanation for why 1:1 isn't immediately concluded in militant dissidence as the only solution as you suggest, and why 0:1 is rationalized is simple human nature. Cognitive dissonance, in this instance.
Kontan is correct, whether or not a fetus is human/alive has nothing to do with my argument. I consider it to be both, for the record.

However, ethically this doesn't matter, because we are considering the impact of having abortion vs. banning abortion has on society, and the logical and moral implications of taking a stance. One can rationalize believing that the life of a fetus is the same as that of a baby, all the while allowing a society to commit what they believe is murder and still remain peaceful objectors, but DUDE. 45 Million. You're living in a literal world of murders. Your own government is worse than EIGHT HITLERS, and your answer is to slap a bumper-sticker on your car and vote republican? Seems kind of an under-reaction in the face Octohitler. don't you think? One would have to be utterly and completely evil to make the choice that you are currently making.

Do I think you're evil? No. I think you don't really believe that a fetus = A baby. You just enjoy repeating it because it makes you feel good.

you are much better at this then I.

Damn right I am.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:56 PM.