The Abortion (that is this) Thread
- Thread starter Einherjar86
- Start date
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
If you define murder as intentionally ending the life of a living being, then it's not even up for debate.
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
rms
Active Member
Well a person entirely on welfare and other social services do not provide anything back to society, while a wealthy man inherently does but obviously lessens the financial impact on him via his position of power..that's how I define "leeching" and "taking advantage."
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
I'm pro choice, but it's irrational when people do that. "Life" is fundamentally a biological status and a fetus is unquestionably alive from a biological perspective.
RedStorm
Death has come
Babies and people die every day, Morality is a human concept but its not realistic. People will kill each other over anything.
Some people abort children knowing that if they are born their life will be horrible. there is a lot more honor in that, then you know
Some people abort children knowing that if they are born their life will be horrible. there is a lot more honor in that, then you know
Dak
mentat
Agreed here. I think people are really arguing over whether or not it's a person rather than alive, but the vulgar use of life in reference to humans as opposed to anything else complicates the discussion.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
I'm not really feeling intellectually energetic enough to argue properly right now, but here is a summary of my views:
Liberals espouse intellectually dishonest arguments for measured benevolent reasons, they want to make it an easier decision for troubled women to make.
It's very telling that said liberals have recently resorted to saying that even babies outside of the womb are not full persons and a less important life than older humans. I think the reason for this is actually a kind of pre-emptive. It's pretty clear that late term abortions and viable premature births coincide. The point is, without this new change in liberal thinking, they would have been left with a totally arbitrary point of birth definition of a babies personhood.
The whole debate is full of very scientific thinking people who are somewhat annoyed and offended by the idea of their being such a thing as a potential person and of that potential person having some kind of rights, but I would say that despite the obvious hole in the potential person idea, that being masturbation and condoms slaughtering potential people by the billion, it is in fitting with other accepted ideas. Few, I imagine who think purely in terms of the immediate loss of life if they were considering the destruction of Earth. Thinking about our progeny is totally rational. It's a bit of a mindfuck but that's how it is.
Why is the loss of sperm or eggs fundamentally different from the loss of fetuses? well, I suppose you could say, because there is zero chance of a sperm cell on its own becoming a human being. It's difficult.
Anyway, even though I don't like the pro-abortion arguments I agree with abortion because I think it's inevitable and if it were outlawed it would just put women at risk in the hands of back street "doctors". It is interesting how the whole pro abortion argument has developed though. It began with white supremacists and seems to have culminated in liberal intellectuals returning to accepting a kind of graduated level of importance of human life depending on the capabilities of the human.
Also, the way that it seems to be totally universally accepted that the father has no say in the matter is pretty shitty imo. It would perhaps produce a better society if they did, because it would mean every child had a father who truly wanted them.
Liberals espouse intellectually dishonest arguments for measured benevolent reasons, they want to make it an easier decision for troubled women to make.
It's very telling that said liberals have recently resorted to saying that even babies outside of the womb are not full persons and a less important life than older humans. I think the reason for this is actually a kind of pre-emptive. It's pretty clear that late term abortions and viable premature births coincide. The point is, without this new change in liberal thinking, they would have been left with a totally arbitrary point of birth definition of a babies personhood.
The whole debate is full of very scientific thinking people who are somewhat annoyed and offended by the idea of their being such a thing as a potential person and of that potential person having some kind of rights, but I would say that despite the obvious hole in the potential person idea, that being masturbation and condoms slaughtering potential people by the billion, it is in fitting with other accepted ideas. Few, I imagine who think purely in terms of the immediate loss of life if they were considering the destruction of Earth. Thinking about our progeny is totally rational. It's a bit of a mindfuck but that's how it is.
Why is the loss of sperm or eggs fundamentally different from the loss of fetuses? well, I suppose you could say, because there is zero chance of a sperm cell on its own becoming a human being. It's difficult.
Anyway, even though I don't like the pro-abortion arguments I agree with abortion because I think it's inevitable and if it were outlawed it would just put women at risk in the hands of back street "doctors". It is interesting how the whole pro abortion argument has developed though. It began with white supremacists and seems to have culminated in liberal intellectuals returning to accepting a kind of graduated level of importance of human life depending on the capabilities of the human.
Also, the way that it seems to be totally universally accepted that the father has no say in the matter is pretty shitty imo. It would perhaps produce a better society if they did, because it would mean every child had a father who truly wanted them.
UltimateApathy
Infinite Idiocy
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
Matt
Active Member
I just want to say that I've never met anyone in my life that is both intelligent and anti choice. Correlation?
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Mathiäs;11051713 said:
By anti-choice, I assume you mean those who condemn abortion under any circumstance?
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Yea but i don't remember anyone making moves to get him ousted back then. If a lot more than just the 25-30 republicans in the house wanted his removal, not just a few religious right wingers, than i would think it would be pretty odd and even somewhat more humiliating for him to not step down. But yeah you're right, hes probably not going anywhere. They're just putting more pressure on him because they want him to make a move against McConnell, who's the main target right now for more than a few reasons, but currently the main one being for his support to keep PP funded. Which is something that every republican(minus one from Illinois) senator voted against.
And yes while those religious righties haven't been fond of Boehner, hes a pretty hardcore conservative himself.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
It's actually disputable whether or not a blood cell is alive and I think most biologists would come down on the "no" side, though it's certainly debatable
But to the main point and your question, it seems obvious to me that it's a being since it exists. However, I'm not totally clear on what you have in mind when you say "being" and considering that it's one of the most disputed terms in philosophy, you should probably elaborate on what you have in mind when you say "being".
Dak
mentat
Mathiäs;11051713 said:
Could be causation - as in their anti-choice position causes you to deem them unintelligent.
Carpe Mortem
Benevolently Batshit
- Aug 21, 2013
- 3,745
- 1,313
- 113
If fetuses have rights to inhabit a human being's body, then so do tapeworms. And pinworms. And hell, all the bacteria we aren't fond of.
#alllivesmatter
#nolivesmatter
#takeyourpickracist
#alllivesmatter
#nolivesmatter
#takeyourpickracist
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 151
- 63
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,723
- 113
How is a red blood cell not alive?
You earlier made a comparison between the killing of a "parasitic" (not your word) fetus to murder of a parasitic adult human. To justify the comparison, you used the argument that both things are living beings. I don't dispute the living part. What, in your definition of the word, would make a human a being and not a bacterial cell? Or are you now arguing that using Lysol is "murder"?
Similar threads
