Re: The World Would Be Better Off

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> At the point where none of these people are responding to PS anymore, does it matter if PS was trolling originally?


agreed; the first two replies were responses to the OP, the rest haven't been.

Re: The World Would Be Better Off

And a troll thread turned into an actual discussion!

☑ Saddam Hussein ☑ Osama Bin Laden ☐ Justin Bieber

53 (edited by avogadro 05-Aug-2010 18:08:55)

Re: The World Would Be Better Off

> [TI] ZoZferatu [Pw9] wrote:

> And a troll thread turned into an actual discussion!




*bows*

for my next trick i will make this elephant disappear.....

Re: The World Would Be Better Off

What elephant?  I don't see an eleph-
OH, SHIT!  yikes

Make Eyes Great Again!

The Great Eye is watching you... when there's nothing good on TV...

55

Re: The World Would Be Better Off

I'm believe everyone has the right to Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is the act of a would-be mother forcibly removing those rights from her would-be child.

I'm pro-life for the same reason I'm Right-To-Die: No one has the right to decide your death for you.

Rehabilitated IC developer

Re: The World Would Be Better Off

The debate about killing a human life being against morality stems from the fact that we dislike the idea of killing another sentient being. Many people have no qualms about going out and killing a rabbit, a boar, a cow. That was a living being animal, but was it wrong it kill it? Modern society suggests that so long as we are humane in how we kill this non-sentient animal then it doesn't matter that it was a living being animal. Now what would happen if that animal you killed happened to be the next step in that animals evolution towards becoming sentient. Was it then wrong to kill that animal? Again, modern society would say "It was just a dumb animal, it was killed humanely".

So at what point does an embryo/feotus/baby become a sentient being?

The argument that an embryo will further develop is a moot point. At the stage of an embryo, if labour was induced, would the embryo survive? at the stage of a feotus if labour were induced, would it survive? Assuming that it did survive, would it be sentient or just a "dumb animal".

If a female is raped, and conceived because of it, is it right for her to have to suffer all of the risks intrinsic in carrying a baby because she was the victim of a crime. You are saying that adoption is a viable alternative, so is it right then that she will have to suffer pain and discomfort for months because of the rape?

SD stated in post 20 that sex even with contraception should be an at your own risk experience. It is possible to take reasonable precautions and for the precautions to fail. If I then have to bring into this world a baby that I'm not prepared to support, that my partner was not ready to give birth to, then is it wrong for this embryo to be brought into the world.

On a side note, I find your post at 13 very amusing avogadro. You state "Any objective, educated individual would classify a fetus as a living human being...". So basically, if we disagree with your point of view we are not objective and we are uneducated?

Insanity and genius are closely related!
*** Eltie for mod! ***
Failing Lemming of Teachings and Australian Cop Orgies: Gwynedd

Re: The World Would Be Better Off

>>The argument that an embryo will further develop is a moot point. At the stage of an embryo, if labour was induced, would the embryo survive? at the stage of a feotus if labour were induced, would it survive? Assuming that it did survive, would it be sentient or just a "dumb animal".<<

That's a technological question only.  Someday they may make it possible to transfer the egg and sperm 2 days after sex, and go from there.  Would that make abortion wrong?

>>If a female is raped, and conceived because of it, is it right for her to have to suffer all of the risks intrinsic in carrying a baby because she was the victim of a crime. You are saying that adoption is a viable alternative, so is it right then that she will have to suffer pain and discomfort for months because of the rape? <<

Yes, because when a woman has consensual sex and becomes pregnant, some man has to suffer for 18 years. ahaha. 

>>On a side note, I find your post at 13 very amusing avogadro. You state "Any objective, educated individual would classify a fetus as a living human being...". So basically, if we disagree with your point of view we are not objective and we are uneducated?<<

I would say yes; I don't see college biology departments torn over what to label ducks while they're still in the egg or cats while they're in the womb.  They're ducks and cats.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

58 (edited by V.Kemp 09-Aug-2010 04:27:12)

Re: The World Would Be Better Off

The big, sick joke is that the biggest abortion advocates in the USA began as racist institutions that wanted to kill as many minorities as possible before they were born.

I don't enjoy bathing in urine or stabbing myself, so I'm not going to read the this whole tired topic of a thread again because they tend to be similar to those. But yes, anyone who denies that a fetus is a living human being is ignorant. Or they're lying. It's one or the other. It's an ignorant claim used by ignorant people/liars because they mistakenly figure that it's the best way to support their argument. If it's not a human being what is it? It's a human being. If it's not alive... Okay, there's no need to mock whoever's making this claim (seen it referenced twice not even reading the whole thread) THAT much. It's alive by every scientific measure available to us. Which is pretty alive.

I'm not pro-life, but yes it's uneducated to hold a position that's obviously and undisputedly wrong. Fetuses are not any other creature; they're humans at the earliest stages of development. It's that simple. It's not my opinion. They really aren't aliens or turtles until leaving the mother. And they're certainly alive by any measure. They have their own genetic code which dictates their development and guides their behavior--it doesn't appear at birth. They develop their own nervous systems and circulatory systems in time. They're alive by 100% of scientific measures. Their cells aren't rocks or dirt or water or wind. They're living cells. By every measure except some misguided and ignorant rhetoric.

This doesn't mean you're going to explode if you kill a fetus, but to claim that a fetus is not a human being is a false claim. And to claim that taking a living thing and making it a dead isn't killing that thing thing redefines what it is to "kill." It's either ignorant or a lie to claim that a fetus is not a living human being. In either event, it's not true. And it's certainly not educated. The technical term for this is "uneducated."

Like I said, not pro life. I respect various positions on this subject fully and I believe that an actual understanding of those positions, what they are, and why their holders hold them is a good thing for all of society. But the position that human beings alive in the early stages of development are not humans nor alive is just ignorant and attempts to rely on fallacious logic to support one's position. While the position may or may not be correct, that living human beings aren't living human beings is not the reason abortion is acceptable if it is.

Please refrain from relying on garbage to support your claims. Nobody respects a man on a garbage heap's opinion on anything. And this would be a sexier forum with more zazz if we were more concerned with an honest discussion with the purpose of boiling down points of agreement and points of contention than making things up because they'd support our position if they were true. Support forum sexiness. Support zazz! And, on a personal note, John Wayne for King of the Universe!

[I wish I could obey forum rules]