This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The latest trend in pro-abortion thinking

#101fudrickPosted 2/18/2013 11:08:55 AM
jasten posted...
That's running away and hiding like an immature brat.


If you break a bone playing a sport, getting a cast is running away and hiding like an immature brat; don't participate in any physical activity if you aren't willing to deal with the consequences
If you have cancer caused by smoking tobacco, receiving chemotherapy is running away and hiding like an immature brat; don't smoke if you aren't willing to deal with the consequences
If you are involved in an auto collision, receiving medical care is running away and hiding like an immature brat; stay out of your damn car if you aren't willing to deal with the consequences

Am I doing it right?

jasten posted...
If you want to call that dealing, then they dealt... and showed their own worth.


How exactly are you defining "deal with the consequences" here, anyway? Taking an action with the intent of nullifying the consequence of an earlier action seems like the perfect way to "deal with the consequences" to me. And in pretty much any case but abortion, that's how it's viewed: getting a cast is "dealing with the consequences" of breaking a bone, getting chemotherapy is "dealing with the consequences" of getting cancer, and going to the ER is "dealing with the consequences" of being in a car crash
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#102Aristotle16807(Topic Creator)Posted 2/18/2013 12:40:24 PM
What is wrong with killing us?
#103hunter_gohanPosted 2/18/2013 12:53:37 PM
BrandonNC316 posted...
However, it's important for me to note that my contention was merely that making abortion illegal is the *least* arbitrary policy that can be enacted (relative to the theoretical alternatives: e.g., abortion being legal only until four months, two weeks, and six days into pregnancy; or legal only until the precise second when the baby is outside of its mother, where killing the child would then instantaneously become illegal).


Basing it on the brain is not arbitrary at all. As ridiculous as the bold sounds to you, that is exactly what you get when you claim "sperm and unfertilized eggs"? Kill it who cares. Yet the precise second when the sperm infiltrates the egg killing it would then instantaneously become illegal. Picking this point along human development is no less arbitrary than picking birth.

Some states have tried to combat this in defiance of the Supreme Court's decisions (which is theoretically "unconstitutional," obviously), but late-term abortions still remain relatively common in several states -- and it most certainly isn't just in the cases of life-threatening medical circumstances.


Common? Common? Now granted if this is true that's a bit messed up and they should tighten up those laws, but either you don't know what common is or you've fallen under the pro-life spell that tries to paint all abortions as late term abortions. 0.7% of abortions in Canada in 2003 were done over 20 weeks. 1% in England and Wales in 2005. 0.56% in New Zealand 2003, 0.20% in Norway over 21 weeks in 2005. 1.6% over week 18 in Scotland 2005, 0.8% over week 18 in Sweden 2005, and 1.4% at or over 21 weeks in the USA 2003.

That's not common; that's ultra rare. It's even rarer than Mythic Rare. I just checked. M:TG's Return to Ravnica set has 254 cards total. The Mythic rares take up 5.9% of those cards. The rares take up an additional 21.6% with like 8 pages and 72.5% left to share between the uncommons and commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_term_abortion#Incidence

Note those graphs with the giant bars there at the beginning and the barely can even see anything nearing the end of those? In the US 59% of abortions occur before week 9. It jumps up to 87% before week 13.

"Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks' gestation: 4.1% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

Conception is the moment at which the new organism (i.e., human being) comes into existence;....


But nothing came into existence. They were present and fully alive before this magical event. Complete with human DNA and everything. This is merely another point along the normal stages of human development that you guys love to arbitrarily not include it as.

...it is the same organism that eventually goes through the normal stages of human development (embryo, toddler, adolescent, etc. until death).


You forgot one of those stages, sperm fertilizing an unfertilized egg. If that single cell in my mother's womb way back when was me, then so was the exact same unfertilized egg and sperm before they combined.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#104hunter_gohanPosted 2/18/2013 12:58:12 PM
Before this precise point in human development, the organism did not exist in any capacity whatsoever; only the separate, distinct entities of sperm and egg existed, and these gametes are not the same organism that will become a fetus, then later an adolescent, and so forth, culminating in the death of that particular organism.


Actually according to the definition of organism, the baby isn't one until the umbilical cord has been cut.

"In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

An organism may be either unicellular (a single cell) or, as in the case of humans, comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many cells) describes any organism made up of more than one cell."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

Women and any embryos attached to them are most certainly contiguous. They won't even form the connections necessary to respond to stimuli until week 26. By having reproduction there it seems obvious they're talking about through the entire development of that particular organism. Which in sexual creatures like Humans involves sperm fertilizing an egg. Either baby's aren't organisms until the cord is cut, or sperm and unfertilized eggs are just as much organisms as a fertilized egg is.

The unborn child's right to not be killed trumps his or her mother's right to not have sex for the benefit of not having to become pregnant.


ftfy The men are just plain screwed. Even if they do get a woman pregnant they still just committed genocide.

And there is indeed an exact moment in time where a new human being came into existence, as there was nothing in existence before this moment except for gametes (sperm and egg) that are biologically-distinct entities. After conception, there no longer exists an "egg" (oocyte), biologically speaking, because fertilization has now taken place.


You mean two things which are vital and necessary for the development of a human being? Without that exact unfertilized egg from my mother on that exact month/year and that exact single sperm which infiltrated it, I would be a completely different person. It would not be me. You can't just arbitrarily ignore this and simply think that just because two cells combine into a new single cell means that single cell was me, but the two cells which were necessary to form that, which were also alive, and which are also a stage on the life of a human organism wasn't me.

Now that's arbitrary.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#105Aristotle16807(Topic Creator)Posted 2/18/2013 1:50:44 PM
What is wrong with killing us?

Basing it on the brain is not arbitrary at all. As ridiculous as the bold sounds to you, that is exactly what you get when you claim "sperm and unfertilized eggs"? Kill it who cares. Yet the precise second when the sperm infiltrates the egg killing it would then instantaneously become illegal. Picking this point along human development is no less arbitrary than picking birth.


It is not arbitrary because there no ambiguity. A member of the human species is created at conception. Basing the personhood on the brain is not arbitrary. But then one would ask what does the brain give that makes its presence so special. The brain gives one sensory input, motor output, and shifts vital functions to the brain stem. An easy way to counter this is to find an example of someone who does not exhibit at least one or all of those traits.

But nothing came into existence. They were present and fully alive before this magical event. Complete with human DNA and everything. This is merely another point along the normal stages of human development that you guys love to arbitrarily not include it as.


A point you still seemed to be confused on is the presence of unique human DNA.
#106fudrickPosted 2/18/2013 2:37:29 PM
Aristotle16807 posted...
A point you still seemed to be confused on is the presence of unique human DNA.


Oh, you mean like the unique human DNA of each individual gamete?
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#107hunter_gohanPosted 2/18/2013 3:02:40 PM
Aristotle16807 posted...
What is wrong with killing us?


Us who? Sapient beings? Cause we're sapient beings. We can actually have a desire to not be killed, we do not need to violate somebodies rights to stay alive, and most importantly we have as a society granted ourselves certain rights that we don't just hand out to anything that happens to be alive. People won't even give em to other Apes and you can sit down and have a damn conversation with them after you teach em sign language. Whereas, a fertilized egg won't even form the connections necessary to mediate sensory input until 26 weeks later.

It is not arbitrary because there no ambiguity. A member of the human species is created at conception.


Ambiguity does not make arbitrary. No one shall ever use a red crayon. Not ambiguous at all; entirely arbitrary.

I've been asking it multiple times, so you must have known this would be the reply, how is a fertilized egg a member of the human species while sperm and an unfertilized egg aren't? Besides you simply claiming it please. What species' sperm do you think I'm producing anyway? Tiger? Shark? That certainly would make an interesting baby......Jaws 19: Shark Boy, the jaw of a shark; the legs and lungs of a human. Not even land is safe anymore.

But then one would ask what does the brain give that makes its presence so special. The brain gives one sensory input, motor output, and shifts vital functions to the brain stem. An easy way to counter this is to find an example of someone who does not exhibit at least one or all of those traits.


It's the entirety of who we are. We are our brains. The body is nothing but a combo life support, locomotion, and i/o systems for the brain. To see this demonstrated, merely look at any case of brain trauma which resulted in an immediate overnight shift of a person's personality. It happens. Why does it never happen if someone injures their arm, leg, chest, heart etc? Because we are our brains. In fact those connections I keep mentioning that a fetus won't form until week 26. Those are thalamic brain connections. Enough damage to the thalamus and you're in a permanent coma. So imagine not even having a brain that has formed a working one yet. If you can you'd basically be imagining non-existence.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/professor-cromer-learns-read/201203/after-brain-injury-the-dark-side-personality-change-part-i

First result on google.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#108hunter_gohanPosted 2/18/2013 3:22:12 PM(edited)
A point you still seemed to be confused on is the presence of unique human DNA.


Nope this brings us right back to my second post in this thread.(In addition to what fudrick just said)

"You can not include fertilized eggs as human beings without either including sperm and unfertilized eggs as well, or by declaring identical twins the same person or a chimera two or more people."

If you want to avoid fudrick's argument you must add that it needs a certain number of chromosomes since the gametes have half of what we normally would. You've given a separation(assuming you go with having to be a certain number of chromosomes.) between the fertilized egg and the sperm and unfertilized egg by simply walking into the second pitfall.

To be consistent, you must now consider identical twins (same DNA!) as one single person. You must now consider Chimera's (One person with multiple [possibly] unique DNA strands within themselves![Just remembered a Chimera can have his and his mother's DNA, so it's possible the second set isn't unique]) as as many people as they have unique DNA strands in them. You must now consider people with Down's Syndrome or any other chromosomal abnormality to not be humans since they contain the wrong number of chromosomes.

See all the trouble you get into when you pick these completely arbitrary points to draw your line in the sand at?
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#109Aristotle16807(Topic Creator)Posted 2/19/2013 6:11:35 AM
You still did not answer my question. What makes us killing us wrong?

You are trying to make it arbitrary. Confusing the topic is not helping your case. Twins that have the same DNA does not mean they are they same person any more than two blocks of wood with the same dimensions are the same blocks of wood. If you are still having trouble telling them apart you'll notice there is two not one. You are playing stupid again.

You still haven't explained what about the brain denotes personhood.

When you say they have an desire to live do you mean expressed or passive? If expressed, then I should be able to kill anyone as long as they did not express their desire to live. If passive, then that must mean mere existence denotes the desire to live. That would mean that a human at any stage of development has a desire to live.

Do you truly believe that a member of the human species is not created until they have a brain with sensory input? If so, what species are they between conception and sensory input?
#110SaikyoStylePosted 2/19/2013 6:58:50 AM
What does abortion have to do with killing people? Aside from the so-called pro-lifers murdering abortion doctors of course.
---
USA Soccer
The north remembers.