Yanks only: Who are you voting for on Tuesday?

[King Richard]

I'm aware.

 

[Dak]

Satan Cheney has now endorsed the Republican ticket. If you want the world to end in a zionist mushroom cloud vote Republican! :Smokedev:

Obviously you haven't read anything on Biden or you would realize the Dem ticket is the same thing.

 

[Mort Divine]

 

[AchrisK]

You're not eliminating a human by having an abortion. Stop saying things like that because it's a propagandizing fear tactic that is in contrast with the facts.

...

It is not a propaganda tactic at all. Showing an aborted fetus in a trash can is a tactic. But to a person who believes that a fetus has the value of a human life, it is a simple fact. Do you really think that a pro-life only refers to a fetus as a human as a tactic? That their entire focus is to win an argument or prove a point? That would be very short sighted of you.

You're not eliminating a human by having an abortion. Stop saying things like that because it's a propagandizing fear tactic that is in contrast with the facts.
...

What facts are these?

A fetus is not alive and is not a human. Do some research.

If you have a link to the universally accepted definition of what constitutes when a fertilized human egg becomes "alive" and "human", then please point me to it.

I have stumbled on to a web site that seems pretty good. It's called religious tolerance.org. Kind of a rarity of a website that tries to present both sides of issues.

Here is something of interest (from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when1.htm):

There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:

1. metabolism,
2. growth,
3. reaction to stimuli, and
4. reproduction."

Its reproductive ability is only demonstrated in about one in 250 births, when it reproduces itself through twinning. This can happen at any time up to about 14 days after conception. This is how mono-zygotic (identical) twins are caused.

 

[skeptik]

Uh...a lot of what they claim that possesses a "near consensus" on things is nowhere near a "near consensus." What is "a form of human life"? There is clearly a distinction between "a form of human life" and human life.

I know you're going to dismiss this as bullshit just by the web address, but a lot of what this FAQ has to say pretty much sums up a large portion of the argument for being pro choice:

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

Questions concerning abortion:

What is abortion?
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the induced removal of an embryo or fetus (that is incapable of survival outside the body of the woman) which results in the death of the embryo/fetus.

What is the essential political issue concerning abortion?
The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman? Or: does a woman's body belong to her, or to the government to forcibly dispose of in favor of the fetus?

Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman?
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.

What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.



Questions concerning rights:

What is the source of all rights?
Rights are scientific, moral principles that guarantee freedom of action in a social context. The source of an individual's right to life is one's nature as a rational being. Rights are requirements necessary for an individual to live as a rational being (human) in a society of men (see Man's Rights by Ayn Rand, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).

Is abortion a right?
Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.

This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.

As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.

Is abortion murder?
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.

Isn't the fetus "life", and thus has a right to life?
A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike cows, trees, bacteria—and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings—and not parts of beings—survive by reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. The only rational action it must take is nothing, i.e. wait for itself to develop using the sustenance provided by its host.

What is the capitalist view on abortion?
Under capitalism (a social system based on the principle of individual rights) abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion (especially in the first few months of pregnancy)—like Steve Forbes—is an enemy of individual rights in principle, and thus an enemy of capitalism. As for those on the Left, who think one can have a right to property without a right to one's body, they are guilty of context dropping.




Questions concerning the fetus:

What is a fetus?
The concept fetus is used to denote the unborn human from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo (the product of conception from implantation in the uterus through the eighth week of development). A fetus contains all the organs and has the basic human form.

Is a fetus a human being because it has a complete set of human DNA?
A fetus is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA; however, a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence (as does a baby, child, or adult). As such, it is a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. It contains all of the DNA of an oak tree, but it is not an oak tree (See also Leonard Peikoff on Abortion: Real Audio).

Is a fetus a human being because it has a complete set of human DNA?
A fetus is a potential human being, and not an actual individual, because it does not have physiological independence outside its host—the pregnant woman.

(Toward the end of a woman's pregnancy, a fetus does have the physiological means to live independently outside its host, the pregnant women, which makes the birth of a healthy child possible, though it remains physically dependent until birth. At birth the fetus becomes a physically independent baby/child.)

Doesn't a fetus have rights because it is "life"?
Life is a state of a cell or organism characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus is life, just as an embryo, a sperm, an ant, an acorn, and a tree, are all life. All these forms of life have no rights. The characteristic of life is necessary to possess rights, but it alone is insufficient (see below).

Is a fetus an independent being?
A being is a physically independent entity. A fetus is physically/physiologically dependent on the woman (host) for its survival—especially during the early stages of pregnancy. Only upon birth is it physically independent of the woman's body, an actual independent being. A baby, in contrast, though 'socially' dependent on the actions of other human beings for its survival, is physiologically and physically independent of the body of its mother.

(An argument can be made that a viable fetus that is fully developed (physiologically independent), but still inside the womb (physically dependent), should not be aborted, but should be delivered early.)

Is a baby a fetus?
A baby, infant, or child, is not a fetus. A baby is an actual human being. A baby, or adult, is a fetus actualized, just like a young oak tree is an acorn actualized.



Questions concerning sex and choice:

If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and she becomes pregnant, then doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside her?

The short answer is no. To understand why let us take the worse case situation: suppose a young college girl is brutally gang raped by a mob of college students (who were taught by their philosophy professor that morality is a matter of numbers—and there are ten of them, and one of her) resulting in the girl becoming pregnant.

According to the view implied in the question, the fetus she carries would have no rights because she did not "choose to have sex." So she would be justified in killing the fetus, because she was raped, and did not "choose to have sex." This begs the question: was it the fault of the fetus that the girl was raped? Did the fetus choose its means of conception? Of course not. So why destroy the fetus, because the woman did not choose to become pregnant?

The problem with such an argument is that it brings down the abortion question down from a question of rights to the matter of competing non-choices: the rights of the woman because of her non-choice of becoming pregnant versus the "rights" of the fetus because of it's non-choice in deciding on whether to be conceived.

According to this view, the source of ones right to life is whether ones parents chose to have consensual sex or not. This is nonsense. Rights are based on the fact of man's nature as a rational being, and not on the sexual inclinations of one's parents.

This brings us back to the original question: "If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and she becomes pregnant, then doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside her?"

Clearly, if the woman chooses to have sex, there would be no justification for her being forced to carry the fetus, as the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights. As there is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.



Are abortion rights are based on the sexual choices of ones parents?
The source of the right to life is not the choices of one's parents, e.g. a two year old child's rights are not based on any decisions made by its parents. The source of the right to life is one's nature as a rational being (see Man's Rights by Ayn Rand, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Similarly, a fetus' lack of rights, are based on its nature as human tissue—and not on the choices of those who brought it into being.

The fact is that either the fetus has a right to be inside a woman by its nature, or it does not—the issue of whether the girl chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant. The proper response to the "choose to have sex" argument is to dismiss such an argument as irrelevant.



Questions concerning children:

Do children have rights?
Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right for a young child differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's conceptual faculty is not fully developed. This is why a six year old girl does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship—and an adult does.

Why does a child, or adult, have a right to life, and not a fetus?
A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus' so called right to life boils down to the "right to remain in the womb"—and such a "right" is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child's right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged "right" that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as "trading one's rights for the rights of others." Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.

Do parents own their children like they own their house?
Parents do not own their children, but are their guardians. Guardians are individuals who make decisions for the child—in the child's best interest—until the child's mind is developed enough so that the child can make decisions for himself. If a parent gives birth to a child—and claims to be its guardian (which is the prerogative of the parent)—then that parent is responsible for taking care of the child, unless the parent revokes guardianship, and turns the child over to someone else for adoption.

 

[waif]

So when does a fetus become human? Are you saying that the act of passing through the womb grants the blob humanness, life, consciousness and senses? One minute earlier it is a generic mammal which is dead and cannot feel or think on any level?

WOW!

You're totally right. It's alive the whole time. In fact, masturbation is a sin because it kills all those sperm which are really alive. And for that matter, procreation is also a sin because only one of the sperm will survive and the other 100 million or so will die.

This also proves that women are all sinful, since they kill babies every month.

 

[AchrisK]

You're totally right. It's alive the whole time. In fact, masturbation is a sin because it kills all those sperm which are really alive. And for that matter, procreation is also a sin because only one of the sperm will survive and the other 100 million or so will die.

This also proves that women are all sinful, since they kill babies every month.

Don't be a tool!

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You're not fucking arguing this correctly tbh.

 

[AchrisK]

Uh...a lot of what they claim that possesses a "near consensus" on things is nowhere near a "near consensus." What is "a form of human life"? There is clearly a distinction between "a form of human life" and human life.

I don't know why you are being defensive about that information. You say yourself that there is a distinction between "a form of human life" and human life. By "human life" I assume you mean a "human being". What part of it is incorrect? You saying that "A fetus is not alive..." is just a semantics game.

I know you're going to dismiss this as bullshit just by the web address, but a lot of what this FAQ has to say pretty much sums up a large portion of the argument for being pro choice:

http://www.abortionisprolife.com/faq.htm

Yeah, because I am infamous for dismissing, out of hand, what people I disagree with say, right? I'd say I am less guilty of that than most on this board.

I do not dismiss that faq as bullshit based on the address, but because it's poorly written and totally biased. You accuse me of a tactic and propaganda? How about this:

Is abortion murder?
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.

What a joke!

I think you should get another source for your information.

It seems their view boils down to this:

Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.

So there is no right to be a parasite? That is ridiculous and weak. Maybe there is no "parasite right" because procreation is the basis for people. If a society starts viewing a fetus as nothing more than a parasite, then I think that society has problems. I think that way too much of the pro-choice movement is a battle of semantics. If you call a fetus a parasite, it is easier to kill it. If you say a fetus is not alive, it is a non-issue to terminate it.

Furthermore, I don't know that I agree that it boils down to a contest of "rights". I think it is more an issue of the value placed on human life. And don't tell me a toenail or sperm is a valid equivalent to a fetus. Let's not pretend.

 

[AchrisK]

You're not fucking arguing this correctly tbh.

What kind of a statement is that? Please educate me on how to properly argue an abortion position. I only went to community college, so I didn't get to take the class on that.

 

[Valerie]

I think it is more an issue of the value placed on human life. And don't tell me a toenail or sperm is a valid equivalent to a fetus. Let's not pretend.

Masturbation is murder because your sperm have the potential to fertalize an egg which has the potential to become a fetus which has the potential to become a human being. Oh noes. In fact, by that ridiculous pro-life logic, not even having sex is murder because each egg and sperm is wasted by not doing anything.

 

[skeptik]

I don't know why you are being defensive about that information. You say yourself that there is a distinction between "a form of human life" and human life. By "human life" I assume you mean a "human being". What part of it is incorrect? You saying that "A fetus is not alive..." is just a semantics game.

First of all, I'm "defensive" about this information because it's wrong, it's claiming that there is a general consensus regarding things on which there is no such consensus. Secondly, no, "a form of human life" is not a human being, if the way that they use the phrase is to make any sense. As the analogy goes, a fetus is an acorn and a baby is an oak tree. They are not the same thing.

Also, it's not merely semantics when you consider what the "aliveness" possessed by a fetus equates to. When one says that a fetus is "alive", one is not talking about a consciousness, a being that is alive, but rather tissue, cells that are alive. A fetus is not at all a living thing in the sense that a human is alive.

Yeah, because I am infamous for dismissing, out of hand, what people I disagree with say, right? I'd say I am less guilty of that than most on this board.

I didn't mean it that way you sillyface.

I do not dismiss that faq as bullshit based on the address, but because it's poorly written and totally biased. You accuse me of a tactic and propaganda? How about this:

Is abortion murder?
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.

What a joke!

I think you should get another source for your information.

I did not claim that it was not biased, but your source was biased as well, and you didn't address the actual claim being made. Abortion is not murder because a fetus is not a living thing, it is a parasitic potential life.

It seems their view boils down to this:

Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.

That is obviously a large portion of it. A fetus is not entitled to any such rights, it's not even a person, let alone a thing that is alive.

So there is no right to be a parasite? That is ridiculous and weak. Maybe there is no "parasite right" because procreation is the basis for people. If a society starts viewing a fetus as nothing more than a parasite, then I think that society has problems. I think that way too much of the pro-choice movement is a battle of semantics. If you call a fetus a parasite, it is easier to kill it. If you say a fetus is not alive, it is a non-issue to terminate it.

Why would there be rights for parasites? How is that "ridiculous and weak," because you don't want to think of a fetus that way?

Nobody views a fetus as "nothing more than a parasite," let me first make that clear. Yes, for most of its gestational period, a fetus can be said, in itself, to be nothing more than a parasite, but obviously we do not look at it merely as what it is, but what it has the potential to be. Unlike you, however, I don't make the mistake of drawing a direct parallel between what it is and what it can be. Just because it can be a human being doesn't mean that it is a human being. Just being it can be a human being doesn't mean that doing something to prevent it from being a human being is a bad thing. It's not just semantics, man. It is not a living being, and that is why it's all right to prevent it from becoming a living being if it is not in your interests. Don't mistake the fact that those who support women's rights call a fetus a non-living thing as just a way to make the act conscionable. It's not said to be so just so it will be easier to get rid of it, it's said to be so because it is so.

Furthermore, I don't know that I agree that it boils down to a contest of "rights". I think it is more an issue of the value placed on human life. And don't tell me a toenail or sperm is a valid equivalent to a fetus. Let's not pretend.

This has nothing to do with the value placed on human life because a fetus is not a human life. I place an immense amount of value on every human's right to life. I avidly oppose the death penalty in all cases. Don't tell me a fetus is a valid equivalent to a human baby. Let's not pretend.

 

[seedofvengeance]

I was thinking that maybe there should be another thread for this, since this is pretty off topic...
then I thought "The Abortion Thread" probably wouldn't work out too well.

 

[kuier]

True, most people from other countries that I've heard from (pretty much people here and a few other forums) would rather we have Obama than McCain. I think, despite any racist inclinations this statement could have, that having a guy that's half-black as our diplomat is at least slightly more inviting than yet another old crotchety white guy.

There is a very famous line from the movie Blazing Saddles that comes to mind here. But I believe in your country it is illegal now.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Heh, really?

 

[The Ozzman]

itt foreigners don't follow directions and vote in the polls anyway

 

[The Ozzman]

Masturbation is murder

and murder is good!

 

[metal_wrath]

 

[kuier]

itt foreigners don't follow directions and vote in the polls anyway

we don't vote. that's what the masses do. we merely snigger at the outcome.

 

[King Richard]

Did Krig vote Obama on this poll as a joke or something?