Its my body,

#576
#576
USMC-TNVOL said:
Abortion has everything to do with opinion and science. Just like you religious fanatics consider all abortion murder. So don’t tell my I’m mixing my views with opinions when you’re doing the exact same thing. At some point, depending on the person, the fetus is considered to have rights or only have rights after being born. There is no science that will tell you when rights should start.

Only the extreme people, like yourself, consider an embryo or human zygote destroyed to be considered murdered. If you’re saying a zygote or embryo have the same protections as someone already born, then why do not sperm and eggs have the same protections because of what they could become? Can’t have everyone spilling their seed on the ground like the Bible says, right?
Click to expand...
you argue science and then say stupid **** like this. 😂
 
#578
#578
Septic said:
Perhaps we should establish positions here, lest we keep talking past each other.

I don't believe a nonviable, non sentient 'embryo/fetus' is a "human", "child" or "baby". I also don't believe a child past about 20 weeks fits the non viable, non sentient definition and do believe abortion (aka late term) at that point is morally wrong and should be banned.

For the aforementioned embryo/fetus, the removal of the amalgamation of cells that could or would at some point grow into what you refer to as a 'baby, child or human' - is between a woman and her health care provider.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your position.
Not human? Then you would disagree with every text book written on biology and human development. I can provide quotes if you like. On what evidence?

Child and baby are ambiguous terms and don't really mean that much too me. Still you contradicted yourself in your own statement as I noted.

Further, your case on viability is flawed. There are unborn that are clearly human, and clearly a child in their appearance (not a clump of cells as you say) that aren't viable. They are dependent on the mother.

A bad mother kills her child. A bad doctor harms a child. If it was a clump of cells they wouldn't be harvesting organs.

It's unarguable that Embryonic life is the first stage of human development and inseparable from our human identity and experience.
 
#583
#583
Roustabout said:
It's unarguable that Embryonic life is the first stage of human development and inseparable from our human identity and experience.
Click to expand...

You could argue that the definition of life itself is merely a reference point agreed upon by scientists for the purpose of convenience and communication. Hell, really all of these terms you're using could be argued against as essentially being arbitrary. You rail against basing an argument on something which is subject to change but your own argument is vulnerable to the same criticism.

In addition, natural law begs the question. That a woman's body will naturally foster and nurture a developing embryo/fetus does not necessarily mean that doing so is a moral "good," or that deviating from this is a moral "evil." Hume criticized this line of thinking only about 300 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970 and Septic
#585
#585
USMC-TNVOL said:
Abortion has everything to do with opinion and science. Just like you religious fanatics consider all abortion murder. So don’t tell my I’m mixing my views with opinions when you’re doing the exact same thing. At some point, depending on the person, the fetus is considered to have rights or only have rights after being born. There is no science that will tell you when rights should start.

Only the extreme people, like yourself, consider an embryo or human zygote destroyed to be considered murdered. If you’re saying a zygote or embryo have the same protections as someone already born, then why do not sperm and eggs have the same protections because of what they could become? Can’t have everyone spilling their seed on the ground like the Bible says, right?
Click to expand...
I beg to differ, most states will charge a double homicide when a pregnant women is killed and the "child" perishes also. I recall a few years ago, and I believe it was a drunk driver, the woman was unaware (or at least her family was) that she was pregnant.
 
#586
#586
Wafflestomper said:
You could argue that the definition of life itself is merely a reference point agreed upon by scientists for the purpose of convenience and communication. Hell, really all of these terms you're using could be argued against as essentially being arbitrary. You rail against basing an argument on something which is subject to change but your own argument is vulnerable to the same criticism.

In addition, natural law begs the question. That a woman's body will naturally foster and nurture a developing embryo/fetus does not necessarily mean that doing so is a moral "good," or that deviating from this is a moral "evil." Hume criticized this line of thinking only about 300 years ago.
Click to expand...
Exactly, we have to work within sociology, natural law and science. I’m going to stick with the best science we have. If that changes I’m open to re-evaluate. If you read earlier you’ll see I was consistent in this regard to the plan-B pill.

And people have since criticized Hume. It misses the point. I’m not even making a moral claim about the mother’s body caring for the child. The morality issue arises when interfere.

People are handicap. That isn’t a moral evil. Intentionally harming yourself on the other hand.....
 
#588
#588
Septic said:
Are you implying that people have sex for reproduction purposes only?
Click to expand...
No. And not sure how you got that from my statement beyond you reaching for an argument.

Most people dont eat cake to get fat or diabetes. But it happens.

Most people dont have sex to get pregnant or an STD, but it happens.

"It" happening doesnt justify killing someone.
 
#589
#589
LouderVol said:
No. And not sure how you got that from my statement beyond you reaching for an argument.

Most people dont eat cake to get fat or diabetes. But it happens.

Most people dont have sex to get pregnant or an STD, but it happens.

"It" happening doesnt justify killing someone.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for women across America, the law says that when 'it' happens - your appeals to emotion aren't relevant.
 
#590
#590
Roustabout said:
Exactly, we have to work within sociology, natural law and science. I’m going to stick with the best science we have. If that changes I’m open to re-evaluate. If you read earlier you’ll see I was consistent in this regard to the plan-B pill.

And people have since criticized Hume. It misses the point. I’m not even making a moral claim about the mother’s body caring for the child. The morality issue arises when interfere.

People are handicap. That isn’t a moral evil. Intentionally harming yourself on the other hand.....
Click to expand...

The criticism is that you're basing an evaluative conclusion on arbitrary/descriptive premises. If scientists tomorrow decided uniformly that (and this is just an example) what makes something "alive" is the ability to move itself then sperm would be considered alive, and then the moral implications have suddenly changed--all based on a definition.

What is morally good about the ability to grow, undergo metabolism, reproduce, etc? Why is it morally evil to impede these processes? Furthermore, why is it not evil to impede these processes in cows, chickens, spiders, etc?
 
#592
#592
USMC-TNVOL said:
Abortion has everything to do with opinion and science. Just like you religious fanatics consider all abortion murder. So don’t tell my I’m mixing my views with opinions when you’re doing the exact same thing. At some point, depending on the person, the fetus is considered to have rights or only have rights after being born. There is no science that will tell you when rights should start.

Only the extreme people, like yourself, consider an embryo or human zygote destroyed to be considered murdered. If you’re saying a zygote or embryo have the same protections as someone already born, then why do not sperm and eggs have the same protections because of what they could become? Can’t have everyone spilling their seed on the ground like the Bible says, right?
Click to expand...
Havent brought up God or religion here. And in fact my stance is fairly counter to most of the religious beliefs.

I am fine with abortion for rape(with a police report) or if it puts the moms life at risk. Fine being the operative word. In those cases I see it as self defense. The hardliners dont.

My stance on the line is based on science. It becomes a human life worth protecting at implantation. Not conception. Again not the hardliner stance? Why? Because it's only at implantation that the womans body starts to react and change. That change is her body adopting what it needs to be a mom (or should). Whether or not she consciously decides to be a mom is irrelevant. She, her body, is saying she is a mom. You can argue that science with her body. Wont change the fact that changes have been made. Anything before that is not interrupting motherhood as her body doesnt even know it yet as it is not pregnant. So use all the contraception you want, again not a true hardliner stance, I am catholic.

And again my understanding of the science is that it takes at least 2 weeks from implantation, for there to be positive pregnancy tests, at which point an abortion could be scheduled. I forget the exact names but that gets us to at least the second or third stage of development. And if there is any slip on that time you could easily have up to month for a woman to figure it out (first missed period). Which I think by that point it has reached the third or fourth stage of development.

Again from what I am remembering by that point, a month in, the lump of cells have started specializing into organs or whatever. Obviously at the very early stages but it's there.

I see no objective reason for a line to be drawn that says viability outside the womb is a necessity. Plenty of infants are born with issues or without fully developed whatevers. Also plenty of fully developed babies die shortly after child birth. So to say it's fine with killing this lump of not fully developed cells is ok, but killing this lump of developing cells is not ok isnt internally consistent.

The brain doesnt stop developing until 25? Why isnt that the line? Most young kids arent going to able to support or care for themselves without parents, why is viability the line?

Heck let's go back to your Orwellian argument for only rich people to have kids. Should we means test parents and kill off any kid that might be poor? You know to avoid suffering?

2020 is a crap year, noone should be born now, kill them all to avoid suffering.
 
#594
#594
Septic said:
I'm not looking to "intrude" on anyone.
Click to expand...
Except for the child you are actively arguing can be killed without justification.

It would be a pretty personable attack to have this same conversation about a person. You are just emotionally drawing a line to justify your stance.
 
#595
#595
Wafflestomper said:
The criticism is that you're basing an evaluative conclusion on arbitrary/descriptive premises. If scientists tomorrow decided uniformly that (and this is just an example) what makes something "alive" is the ability to move itself then sperm would be considered alive, and then the moral implications have suddenly changed--all based on a definition.

What is morally good about the ability to grow, undergo metabolism, reproduce, etc? Why is it morally evil to impede these processes? Furthermore, why is it not evil to impede these processes in cows, chickens, spiders, etc?
Click to expand...
Under the Hume argument, what would classify as "good".
 
#596
#596
Well, with all of the killing in the country going on, I guess we can just add this to the list.🥶🥶🤔
 
#597
#597
Roustabout said:
I appreciate your position.
Not human? Then you would disagree with every text book written on biology and human development. I can provide quotes if you like. On what evidence?

Child and baby are ambiguous terms and don't really mean that much too me. Still you contradicted yourself in your own statement as I noted.

Further, your case on viability is flawed. There are unborn that are clearly human, and clearly a child in their appearance (not a clump of cells as you say) that aren't viable. They are dependent on the mother.

A bad mother kills her child. A bad doctor harms a child. If it was a clump of cells they wouldn't be harvesting organs.

It's unarguable that Embryonic life is the first stage of human development and inseparable from our human identity and experience.
Click to expand...

It would appear as if the whole of your argument is to mire the terminology in the quicksand that suits your argument while dismissing my interpretation of what a embryo or fetus is or isn't. What you've failed to account for is that I really don't care that you find my argument unconvincing or my argument flawed. I've attempted to explain my position, you've rejected it - I can live with that. If you want to stomp your feet and insist that an embryo that isn't viable outside of the womb and hasn't yet achieved sentience is a "human" and deserving of the same 'rights' as you and I, be my guest. We'll simply need to agree to disagree.
 
#598
#598
Septic said:
It would appear as if the whole of your argument is to mire the terminology in the quicksand that suits your argument while dismissing my interpretation of what a embryo or fetus is or isn't. What you've failed to account for is that I really don't care that you find my argument unconvincing or my argument flawed. I've attempted to explain my position, you've rejected it - I can live with that. If you want to stomp your feet and insist that an embryo that isn't viable outside of the womb and hasn't yet achieved sentience is a "human" and deserving of the same 'rights' as you and I, be my guest. We'll simply need to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much my stance and no matter what is said there will always be a disagreement on what constitutes viability and being human. It bothers me, however, when people insist on telling a mother or father what is best for them. Sure, a 5 year old with a terminal genetic disease is a human, and is even sentient. With testing the way it is today, you can find out if your child is predisposed to getting any number of genetic diseases and if the doctor does indeed say your child is at risk, it should be the parents decision and only the parents decision what they want to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#599
#599
LouderVol said:
Except for the child you are actively arguing can be killed without justification.

It would be a pretty personable attack to have this same conversation about a person. You are just emotionally drawing a line to justify your stance.
Click to expand...

This is the appeal to emotion you seem to have a trouble recognizing.

My 'stance' is that you should stay out of the healthcare decision of a woman and her provider, no more or less.
 
#600
#600
USMC-TNVOL said:
Abortion has everything to do with opinion and science. Just like you religious fanatics consider all abortion murder. So don’t tell my I’m mixing my views with opinions when you’re doing the exact same thing. At some point, depending on the person, the fetus is considered to have rights or only have rights after being born. There is no science that will tell you when rights should start.

Only the extreme people, like yourself, consider an embryo or human zygote destroyed to be considered murdered. If you’re saying a zygote or embryo have the same protections as someone already born, then why do not sperm and eggs have the same protections because of what they could become? Can’t have everyone spilling their seed on the ground like the Bible says, right?
Click to expand...
See, you just pulled out a BS claim. I've stated in clear terms the logic, sociology and science without ever bringing religion into it. So, instead you bring it into it because you can't actually defend your own position. It's a despicable tactic.

Sperm and Eggs don't have protections because they aren't a unique, human life. Again, another bad argument. Your logical failures and clear error have been pointed out and instead of acknowledging you double down and then start with straw man attacks.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top