Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

Originally posted by Sinnthia
I would like to add, aside from the fact that trying to discuss this with you, Mindspin, is much like a broken carousel ride, many of us do not have 14 hours a day to spend on ATS. Many do not have a fraction of that time. Many people get up from their computers and contribute to LIFE. As well, many of us just do not find the topic of Abortion so much fun to discuss ALL DAY, EVERY DAY; especially with MEN desperatetly grasping to fantasy view of a world where women only have abortions because they are amoral sluts and your penis is defenseless against against them

This is very unfair, many men here, including myself are fully in support of a womans right to have an abortion, simply being men doesn't mean our opinion is void or less important. I have read a number of your replies now where you seem to really dislike men commenting or have a problem with men in general.

Try not to damage your own argument by insulting a whole other group of people would you. You're making some excellent points but undermining them at the same time with the borderline anti-men rants.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Kailassa

 

As a professional in the medical field, I have sources which the average person does not have access to.

Then please share those sources...or are we just supposed to take you on your word???
The fact that the only case you mentioned was one of the most known cases of cojoined twin surgery because of the controversy...makes me doubt your "inside information".

But please "professional in the medical field"...which makes me assume you are not a doctor...most likely a nurse trying to sound more educated/experienced than you really are...give us these sources that only you are privy to.

I don't know why you consider the claims I've made extraordinary and I really don't care.
Obviously anything I say about how I've known about such cases will just be matter of my word, and you've already indicated that's not good enough to you. However there's plenty of information even you can access on the net which proves what I'm saying about the necessity, in some cases to operate on conjoined twins to save the life of one at the expense of the other.

A paper on Conjoined Twins presented to the 2011: APSA 42nd Annual Meeting

Conjoined Twins

Conjoined Twins: Treatment

Surgical Experience with Thirteen Conjoined Twins

It's pretty obvious, spinner, you are just jumping at the chance to launch a personal attack on an opponent in an effort to pull the thread off-topic and distract attention from your woeful inability to conduct a logical debate.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
This is very unfair, many men here, including myself are fully in support of a womans right to have an abortion,

Please actually read my post. You will see not only that I am NOT bashing men in general, I pretty specifically state what it is I have an issue with and it is not just the Y chromosome. I think it is incredibly unfair that men do not get pregnant.

If you want fair, fix that first. Then we can talk about fair.

simply being men doesn't mean our opinion is void or less important.

When it comes to one's opinion about how best to deal with one's own uterine issues, I have to disagree. Much like my opinion on how you should treat your prostrate is less valid than say, someone who has and understands a prostate.

I know, life is not fair.

I have read a number of your replies now where you seem to really dislike men commenting or have a problem with men in general.

Were all of those posts in an abortion thread and addressed to one or two very specific people by any chance? I do not remember saying anything negative about any gender in any thread that was not about a gender specific issue. The topic is abortion. Please understand that I do indeed feel some fundamentalist, uppity, superiority complex suffering MAN has a little less say in what happens to my uterus than I do. Why is that so crazy?

If people like mindspin are so concerned with what happens to unborn children, then he should carry a few to term. Unless for some reason men and women are actually a little different.

Try not to damage your own argument by insulting a whole other group of people would you. You're making some excellent points but undermining them at the same time with the borderline anti-men rants.

Well I guess I appreciate that but do not take what I am saying in an abortion thread to a couple of other posters and somehow generalize and extrapolate that out to places I have and never would have taken it.

There is a big difference between hating men and pointing out that if everyone just worried about their own uterus, men would not have a place at the table to begin with. But clearly minding one's own business does not mesh with the "pro-lifers" aganda.

Do you not ever feel like all these posts saying things like
"If it was rape she would have fought back" along with "woman have no right to....with their own bodies" do not come off as female hating?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Please actually read my post. You will see not only that I am NOT bashing men in general, I pretty specifically state what it is I have an issue with and it is not just the Y chromosome. I think it is incredibly unfair that men do not get pregnant.

If you want fair, fix that first. Then we can talk about fair.

Please don't be so ridiculous, that's not philosophy or freedoms,, it's not maleable, it's biology. If you want to start using the argument about biology then i think it's incredibly unfair women don't do hardly any of the manual labour that keeps everything in society running, all because they got two X chromosomes and so don't have the testosterone levels to gain the general level of strength needed in industry. Yet they benefit from all of that manual labour performed by men.

See i can use ridiculous arguments based on uncontrollable biological factors as well!

Originally posted by Sinnthia
When it comes to one's opinion about how best to deal with one's own uterine issues, I have to disagree. Much like my opinion on how you should treat your prostrate is less valid than say, someone who has and understands a prostate.

I know, life is not fair.

So what is your position on circumcision? Because in the USA at least most women prefer it and think men who don't have it done are disgusting, why should women get any say? Why should a mother be able to mutilate her child? Surely it should be the husbands choice only as he has a penis and she doesn't, right?

Sorry i find this hypocrisy is stupid and i also think it's a moronic idea that men can't comment on abortion when it directly affects them, unless you think having a child doesn't affect a man at all? Men shouldn't get a say in whether a woman has an abortion or not of course, that is her body, but don't say our opinion means less in the disscussion of it.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Were all of those posts in an abortion thread and addressed to one or two very specific people by any chance? I do not remember saying anything negative about any gender in any thread that was not about a gender specific issue. The topic is abortion. Please understand that I do indeed feel some fundamentalist, uppity, superiority complex suffering MAN has a little less say in what happens to my uterus than I do. Why is that so crazy?

If people like mindspin are so concerned with what happens to unborn children, then he should carry a few to term. Unless for some reason men and women are actually a little different.

Again you need to have some kind of consistent logic here and using the trump card of "men can't carry babies so shut up" isn't a good way of going about a discussion. And you capitalise the word man a lot, i think you have some problems in that area. And remember i'm on the womans side regarding abortion here so my reasons for criticising you are not motivated by the topic.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
Do you not ever feel like all these posts saying things like
"If it was rape she would have fought back" along with "woman have no right to....with their own bodies" do not come off as female hating?

I think they're religious extremists, not women haters, but even if they were women haters that doesn't give you a good reason to post anything general about men, and yes saying mens opinions are less valid just because it's about abortion is sexist. As for the woman not fighting back, i think that comes don to ignorance, lots of people think they would fight back without realising the effect that shock and fear can have on someone.

Of course the way you talk about rape you make it sound like it just happens to women or men in prison which is again horribly ignorant. You do know women can rape men, right?

Stop going off topic, stop making this a man vs woman argument and instead concentrate on the topic at hand, because you're just undermining your own argument and causing people like myself to post more off topic stuff replying to correct you.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
See i can use ridiculous arguments based on uncontrollable biological factors as well!

No, actually you cannot. I can show you female construction workers, wrestlers, cops, firefighters, military personel. You make no sense at all. I thought you were a little smarter than that. I see you were actually just hoping to instigate a fight with me now. Got it. Well, then you better get in line.

You matching me one for one with men that have a uterus is something I am going to have to see to believe. Am I missing the huge population of pregnant men out there?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
No, actually you cannot. I can show you female construction workers, wrestlers, cops, firefighters, military personel. You make no sense at all. I thought you were a little smarter than that. I see you were actually just hoping to instigate a fight with me now. Got it. Well, then you better get in line.

The majority of people in physical work that keeps society running are men, oil workers, truck drivers, road repair workers blah blah the majority are men so my argument was quite well based in reality and saying i was trying to pick a fight is an ad hom. The majority of deaths in mining, oil working and heavy industry are men, not women simply because women don't tend to enter those jobs. I was merely pointing out that arguing that biology gives one person more importance in a discussion is ridiculous. To use another example, are you saying a disabled person who campaigns for disabled rights should be listened to more than an able bodied person campaigning for disabled rights?

Originally posted by Sinnthia
You matching me one for one with men that have a uterus is something I am going to have to see to believe. Am I missing the huge population of pregnant men out there?

edit on 2-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

Again, just because men can't have children doesn't mean their opinion is less valid and you failed to respond to the rest of my post which is vrey intereting, espeicially the part about circumcision, should a woman have a say in that situation?

If a mans opinion means less on this topic just because he can't carry a child, then the opinion of a man who supports a womans right to abortion also means less and this undermines your own argument. Your argument is a sexist one, you are saying men shouldn't have a say, or at least their opinion respected less just because they are men.

And again, i fully support a womans right to an abortion so i'm not grinding an axe here, just pointing out the seriously sexist nature of your remarks.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
You matching me one for one with men that have a uterus is something I am going to have to see to believe. Am I missing the huge population of pregnant men out there?

I never said i would do this........................seems like you're using the tactics of MindSpin.

Second line.

Third line.

reply to post by Maslo

Sentience probably requires a little more than simple fetal brain waves, but that is the basic thing required for it, and as long as we cannot determine those other variables, I am taking the safest route, and as inverse of legal death (brain death), also most logical. Even if we take only the appearance of this basic criterion for sentience as fully formed sentience, abortions till 4th month are still allowed.
Remember that for our purpose all we need is determine when sentience surely does not yet appear (lack of basic prerequisite is a proof of that), not when it appears with 100% certainty.

So if in the future, more sensitive instruments are developed and they can detect the fainter brain waves earlier and earlier in the pregnancy....then you are fine with them setting the cut off date based on that new information???

And what is the function of a "brain wave"? Is it not just to communicate to the other cells of the body? Don't all cells "communicate" with each other chemically and in some cases with electrical signals? What makes "brain waves" special?

I know that measurement is not absolutely sensitive, but that is not a problem. We dont need to know it exactly for our purposes, since all that we must know is where brain waves are surely NOT present. Thats in the first trimester, and that should be legal limit for abortion.

So another arbitrary picked measurment for the determination for "life". Why one month? Do we have any evidence that the faintest brain waves show up one month prior to the brain waves we can detect? Why not two months? 3 months? Just to be certain that we aren't accidentally killing a sentient being?

If your focus is truly protecting sentient beings...why take that gamble?

Of course, if your goal really isn't to protect sentient beings, and you are just using this to justify abortion...then you would have no problem taking that gamble.

No, that would be too resource consuming. The limit should be set legistativelly as average appearance of brain waves, minus one month, just to be sure we dont kill abnormal babies. That is cca 3 months. Overwhelming majority of abortions happen far before this limit eitherway (at least over here), so it really doesnt have to be higher.

I'm sorry...but "resources" shouldn't stand in the way of life or death of someone. Many resources are spent keeping coma patients and those with severe brain injuries alive. Doing one simple test before an abortion is performed to check for brain waves doesn't seem any more resource intensive than those.

This is sounding like an excuse. I don't understand how you can just blow off the possibility that a sentient being may be getting killed if your true goal is to protect all sentient beings.

Is your goal to protect all sentient beings or not?

Yes, I believe its wrong. I am not a vegetarian, since I would not change anything in practice about killing higher animals, even if I was. But the fact that the world does not adhere to part of my morality (protecting all sentient life) does not mean I cannot support it adhering to the other part (not protecting unsentient life)

I am seriously beginning to quesiton the sincerity in your argument.

You don't even practice what you preach. You believe all "sentient" life should be protected...and yet you eat animals which may be sentient (no way of us to know). And the reason you still eat animals is because not doing so wouldn't change anything worldwide? I thought this was your personal moral philosophy...why would you not follow your own persnal moral philosophy?

I am really starting to question if you believe any of this at all yourself, or if it is just a convienent argument to use to attempt to justify why abortion is an acceptable practice.

You admittedly don't support protecting all sentient life...and you also don't support protecting non-sentient life. So where exactly is the basis of your argument.

You have just stated that you don't really have a basis for protecting ANY life, sentient or not...so I am just utterly confused at you trying to argue using "brain waves" to set the limit of when a human (which you say isn't special) can be killed.

Person cannot loose sentience reversibly, it can probably just "pause" it for example in a deep coma (you are sentient in a dream), but it is still there, saved in neural connections, and brain waves as a requirement for it are still present, so sentience as we define it for our purpose was not lost.
If brain waves are not present, its brain death and legal death.

This just further proves that your definition of "sentience" doesn't have anything to do with being aware nor does it coincide with any of the definitions of "sentience" that I linked to. Do you have a source to your definition of sentience...or is it just your own personal definition?

It seems like you are just making it up as you go along.

You claim defining human protection on something other than human DNA, thus allowing abortions is dangerous slippery slope. Why havent all countries where abortion in some form is legal descended into eugenic nazi dicatorships yet? And when will it happen? Is it possible that slope is not slippery anymore? For example having some basic form of welfare does not have to slip to socialist dictatorship either.

First, I would like to point out that you have not asked me ONE question about my position. No where have you questioned my position or have tried to refute it. You have not tried for one second to claim that my position is illogical or incorrect. You are only desperately trying to justify your position.

Are you willing to admit that even if you think your position is "valid"...that you can not find any fault with my reasoning???

But about this slippery slope...just because it has not happened yet doesn't mean the potential still isn't there. You have agreed that biologically, human life begins at conception...correct? And look at the disregard the fetus is shown now. Pregnancy, at all stages used to be something good and precious...afterall it is how we reproduce and is essential to our species survival. Look at how pregnancy is now viewed by some in this thread...it is a punishment...it is a burden...it is a violation of the women's rights.

You may not recognize the slipe we have already taken down that slope, but me and others have...respect has been lost for the beginning of new life.



So I would like to summarize the points you have made throughout this discussion and in this post. And end with another question.

- You don't believe humans are "special", and so that fact alone doesn't provide enough criteria for "protection" in your opinion. Correct?

- You don't believe in "protecting" non-sentient life, so that is why you feel abortions are ok in the first 3 months. Correct?

- You don't really believe (not enough to practice it) in "protecting" sentient life, because you admittedly eat other potentially sentient animals. Correct?

- You have contradicted your own basis of argument by admitting that you don't even practice what you preach in terms of "protecting" sentient beings. You aren't willing to become vegetarian, even though your "morals" would seem to dictate it. So you go against your own morals of protecting all "sentient" life, and you also believe that non-sentient life should not be protected.

So my question is, do you think anything should be "protected"???

And since you have just contradicted your basis of your argument that all "sentient" life should be protected...what exactly is your new criteria for "protection" of life??? Why is a adult human "protected"...what is the criteria?




And again I'll ask if you have any thing to counter my argument?

reply to post by Sinnthia

Please actually read my post. You will see not only that I am NOT bashing men in general, I pretty specifically state what it is I have an issue with and it is not just the Y chromosome. I think it is incredibly unfair that men do not get pregnant.

If you want fair, fix that first. Then we can talk about fair.

You are so bitter about your biological role in life.

How sad...you will never be happy with your life.

When it comes to one's opinion about how best to deal with one's own uterine issues, I have to disagree. Much like my opinion on how you should treat your prostrate is less valid than say, someone who has and understands a prostate.

If you want to remove your uterus...by all means go ahead.

But if another human is killed in the process of your "uterine issues"...than it is the concern of all of society...just as if your neighbor was murdered...I bet you would be a little concerned.

Were all of those posts in an abortion thread and addressed to one or two very specific people by any chance? I do not remember saying anything negative about any gender in any thread that was not about a gender specific issue.

It's funny, because there are so many man haters in this thread, I decided to go back and review your posts. This is from your second post.

Anyway. All you "pro life" MEN in this thread that feel your opinion about it should extend beyond your skull. Why don't you seem as fervently against rape of all kinds? I am curious why that is not a higher priority. Maybe when all men agree to put an end to rape, us women will come back to the table.

You definately have an issue with men...and are obsessed with rape.

But the funny part is that your first 6 posts in this thread are yelling at pro-choice men...I think their penises blinded you and you didn't realize they were on your side

There is a big difference between hating men and pointing out that if everyone just worried about their own uterus, men would not have a place at the table to begin with. But clearly minding one's own business does not mesh with the "pro-lifers" aganda.

You go ahead and worry about your uterus...I'll worry about the babies you support killing.

Oh look...I do have a seat at the table...I could care less if you like it or not.

Do you not ever feel like all these posts saying things like
"If it was rape she would have fought back" along with "woman have no right to....with their own bodies" do not come off as female hating?

Could you please provide some quotes where the "one or two males" you are hating against in this thread made statements like that?

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I think they're religious extremists, not women haters

Still trying to get that to stick...eh?

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Sinnthia
You matching me one for one with men that have a uterus is something I am going to have to see to believe. Am I missing the huge population of pregnant men out there?

I never said i would do this........................seems like you're using the tactics of MindSpin.

Second line.

Third line.

edit on 2-3-2011 by ImaginaryReality1984 because: (no reason given)

I haven't been more offended in this thread than I am right now by this comment.



How dare you.......she couldn't use my tactics if I wrote her a book on how to do it. I do sense her envy of my tactics....but she has a long way to go...even her sarcasm isn't very well played.

Originally posted by MindSpin
I haven't been more offended in this thread than I am right now by this comment.



How dare you.......she couldn't use my tactics if I wrote her a book on how to do it. I do sense her envy of my tactics....but she has a long way to go...even her sarcasm isn't very well played.

Yeah and why you seem so proud about lying, spinning data and manipulating people on the internet is very very strange, you might think it denotes intelligence but it just denotes a sociopathic trait.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by MindSpin
I haven't been more offended in this thread than I am right now by this comment.



How dare you.......she couldn't use my tactics if I wrote her a book on how to do it. I do sense her envy of my tactics....but she has a long way to go...even her sarcasm isn't very well played.

Yeah and why you seem so proud about lying, spinning data and manipulating people on the internet is very very strange, you might think it denotes intelligence but it just denotes a sociopathic trait.

Actually...I only take pride in people having to reduce their arguments to accusing me of such acts. My name gives them a nice little incentive to do so...it's no accident.


I would much rather have them stick to trying to refute my arguments...but we all know it is easier for them to attack my supposed "tactics"...and then fail to specifically point out where I did any lying, spinning or manipulating.

Although I will flat out admit to manipulating people...I don't ask the question in which I am seeking the answer for...when you ask people straight up...they tend to lie. It is much better, and easier for me, to manipulate them into revealing their true thoughts on a topic by indirectly questioning them...and then revealing to them what they have so willingly admitted to.

You see...if I asked anyone "Do you support killing human life"...they won't say yes...but if I get them to first admit that they support abortion, then for them to admit that terminating a pregnancy is "ending" the cell division process, and then for them to admit that the biological definition of "LIFE" is in fact true and that life begins at conception....then they have nicely just admitted, whether they like it or not, that they support killing human life.

It is at that point that they get angry and attack me for twisting their words...when in fact they fully admitted it themselves.


See, I bet you didn't even know you support the killing of human life...did you?

reply to post by MindSpin

So if in the future, more sensitive instruments are developed and they can detect the fainter brain waves earlier and earlier in the pregnancy....then you are fine with them setting the cut off date based on that new information???

Of course, altrough I doubt it will change much, since undeveloped brain cannot produce BW, and current measurements are pretty accurate.

And what is the function of a "brain wave"? Is it not just to communicate to the other cells of the body? Don't all cells "communicate" with each other chemically and in some cases with electrical signals? What makes "brain waves" special?

Brain waves are the result of a neural cells communication which creates sentience. Other cells communication does not create sentience, and is therefore irrelevant.

So another arbitrary picked measurment for the determination for "life". Why one month? Do we have any evidence that the faintest brain waves show up one month prior to the brain waves we can detect? Why not two months? 3 months? Just to be certain that we aren't accidentally killing a sentient being?

Its no measurement, but a precaution. Why do you consider one month insufficient? We KNOW that unless you have differentiated neurons in telencephalon, and those neurons are interconnected, there can be no BW, no sentience. So thats the lower limit for abortion limit we can derive from developmental anatomy. Are you saying that there is a reasonable probability that brain waves and sentience can exist in 2nd month of development? Nonsense. Read up on developmental embryology.

Doing one simple test before an abortion is performed to check for brain waves doesn't seem any more resource intensive than those.

OK, if the abortion was performed in the last allowed month (3rd), I may not be against it, even if I can guarantee you that they would probably all come down negative.

I'm sorry...but "resources" shouldn't stand in the way of life or death of someone.

Then why we dont have everyone entitled to full body PET scan every month? It may save lots of cancer patients. But it would be simply not real. And it this situation the benefit would actually be huge, in pre-abortion BW scanning the probability of finding and saving abnormal fetus with measurable BW in 3rd month is next to nothing.

You don't even practice what you preach.

Yes, I am an immoral person when I eat meat of higher animals, I approve that. Anything to the topic, like why should we protect unsentient life at the expense of sentient life, and not why I am not a vegetarian in practice, even if I consider them more moral?

This just further proves that your definition of "sentience" doesn't have anything to do with being aware nor does it coincide with any of the definitions of "sentience" that I linked to. Do you have a source to your definition of sentience...or is it just your own personal definition?

For a thousand time, from wikipedia:

Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive.

Are you saying comatose patients cannot feel of perceive (if not anything more, than at least their inner mindworld)? Presence of brain waves is important prerequisite for this, so important that we can even use the equality brain waves = sentience in practice.

First, I would like to point out that you have not asked me ONE question about my position. No where have you questioned my position or have tried to refute it. You have not tried for one second to claim that my position is illogical or incorrect. You are only desperately trying to justify your position.

Your position is logical, IF one does not adhere to consequentialist morality and accepts some deontological morality that says "all human life should be protected" as one of the principles, which is IMHO illogical in itself. Your position would be equally valid or logical in my opinion if I was a moral relativist. I am not. So I think your position is less logical than mine, since morality is ultimately about relevant science and logic, and science and logic says this about morality.

So I would like to summarize the points you have made throughout this discussion and in this post. And end with another question. - You don't believe humans are "special", and so that fact alone doesn't provide enough criteria for "protection" in your opinion. Correct? - You don't believe in "protecting" non-sentient life, so that is why you feel abortions are ok in the first 3 months. Correct? - You don't really believe (not enough to practice it) in "protecting" sentient life, because you admittedly eat other potentially sentient animals. Correct?

Correct.

- You have contradicted your own basis of argument by admitting that you don't even practice what you preach in terms of "protecting" sentient beings. You aren't willing to become vegetarian, even though your "morals" would seem to dictate it. So you go against your own morals of protecting all "sentient" life, and you also believe that non-sentient life should not be protected.

Yes, its hard to be moral when everyone around is immoral. But at least I admit it.

reply to post by Maslo

Are you saying that there is a reasonable probability that brain waves and sentience can exist in 2nd month of development? Nonsense. Read up on developmental embryology.

If there are brain cells there is the possibility of "brain waves"...is there not? Just because we can't measure them does not mean they are not there...you have admitted this yourself.

www.nlm.nih.gov...

•Week 3 of gestation (embryo development); week 5 of pregnancy
◦The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop.

By week 3 the brain is starting to develop...how do you know there are not "brain waves" with the very first development of brain cells?

I would say this is a very credibl source...would you not??? No where in there does it discuss the appearance of "brain waves".

So are you willing to push your cutoff date to week 5 of pregnancy? Since we can't be sure there is NO sentience?

You have stated this is your basis of your argument...as long as we can be sure there is NO CHANCE of sentience. With the presence of brain cells and development...how can you be sure of that?

Then why we dont have everyone entitled to full body PET scan every month? It may save lots of cancer patients. But it would be simply not real. And it this situation the benefit would actually be huge, in pre-abortion BW scanning the probability of finding and saving abnormal fetus with measurable BW in 3rd month is next to nothing.

Monthly PET scans would do more harm than good with the increased radiation exposure....you would be harming more lives than saving.

And who said anything about "saving" the 3rd month fetus...if there are brain waves...the abortion would just be denied due to it killing a sentient life....right?

Yes, I am an immoral person when I eat meat of higher animals, I approve that. Anything to the topic, like why should we protect unsentient life at the expense of sentient life, and not why I am not a vegetarian in practice, even if I consider them more moral?

You are really trying to hard to hold onto your basis of your argument.

You are trying to argue from a moral standpoint...but admit you are an immoral person based on those same morals.

I'm sorry...but if you willingly admit that you are an immoral person and don't live up to the morals you are trying to use as an argument...doesn't your position just fall apart?

Like I said before, and you dodged the question...if you fully admit you are immoral and don't follow your own moral argument...then what stops someone else from killing a human adult? Is that MORE immoral than you eating an animal? Both are ending a sentient life...unless of course you are willing to admit that there is something "special" about human life???

I stand by my one and only moral declaration....killing any human life is wrong...I haven't killed a human in my life.

Your position is logical, IF one does not adhere to consequentialist morality and accepts some deontological morality that says "all human life should be protected" as one of the principles, which is IMHO illogical in itself. Your position would be equally valid or logical in my opinion if I was a moral relativist. I am not. So I think your position is less logical than mine, since morality is ultimately about relevant science and logic, and science and logic says this about morality.

More about morals that you don't even feel are important or correct enough for you to follow them yourself. You are spouting off morals and philosophy and they are things you don't even agree with enough to follow...why are they all of a sudden the most important thing to consider for abortion???

How exactly is "all human life should be protected" illogical...walk me down that logical path please???

And there is no such thing as "less logical"...making a statement like this makes me question your grasp on logic. There is logical...and illogical...there is no "less logical".

So which is it...is my arguemnt "logical" or "illogical"? If you say it is "illogical", you are going to have to at least try to prove why you think so.

Yes, its hard to be moral when everyone around is immoral. But at least I admit it.

No it is not...you are making excuses because you REALLY don't believe in these morals. It is not hard to be a vegetarian while everyone else is not...that is a PERSONAL CHOICE...one that would be made based off of your personal morals.

This tells me that these aren't truly your personal morals that you believe in...it tells me that it is the only argument you were left with and now you are desperatley trying to defend something that you don't even think is legit enough to follow yoruself.


I see you ignored most of my questions...I am going to list them out here again one by one to give you a chance to answer them and not dodge them. And so others don't accuse me of just claiming you didn't answer them...I am actually providing you with the ones you didn't answer. And these are just the unanswered quesitons...There are new questions in this reply above.

- Is your goal to protect all sentient beings or not?

- I thought this was your personal moral philosophy...why would you not follow your own persnal moral philosophy?

- do you think any life should be "protected"???

- And since you have just contradicted your basis of your argument that all "sentient" life should be protected...what exactly is your new criteria for "protection" of life??? You don't do this in practice...so you can not claim that this is your honest belief without being a hypocrite.

- Why is a adult human "protected"...what is the criteria?

reply to post by Annee

Actually, I am not sure what you mean by that. Can you clarify? Thank You.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by 44247844
reply to post by Annee

 

"Sacred" means whatever you want it to mean.

My Hudoo sky monster tells me that Coca-Cola is "sacred." He also informs me that the majority of anti-abortionists are secretly trying to take down the Coca-Cola corporation. It seems pretty clear that it is my sky monster given duty to protect said soft drink at all costs. This may not sound pretty but who am I to question what my sky monster claims is sacred?

You would do the same, right?
I know you will understand when the end times come and its soon. My sky monster gave me a calendar and we sit and laugh about how your sky monster won't tell you when he is supposed to come back.

Personal definitions of words make everything more fun.

I can do this. Abortion is an individual right because mallet toaster of the last kind of cruchy forward blue frogs.

Yeah, refute that.

I hope I am not the only one that sees how much of the supposed "pro-life" argument relies on the most malleable definitions you can find.

Sinnthia, despite the fact that I am posting controversial responses in a controversial forum on a controversial topic, not once have any of the responses that were directed at me been like yours. I have consistently been courteous to everyone who has posted a response to me, whether I agreed with them or not. I have consistently attempted to be as courteous as possible in every point that I made.

And yet, you have the hatred to respond to me in such a manner, for no reason at all. In my post where I said "sacred means whatever you want it to mean", I was simply taking into account the fact that different people have different opinions on what "sacred" means. I was not attempting to make a religious argument in any way, shape, or form. Nor have I been attempting to make any arguments on the basis of religion, only on the basis of "equality" (If you have noticed anything about my posts, you will have noticed that I use quotation marks often. This is to refer to the fact that many words have subjective definitions).

Your references to "sky monsters" also insults a wide variety of people who you know nothing about. I have not been bringing religion into my arguments, but I believe that if someone wants to practice a religion without harming anyone else, then it is no one else's business what their beliefs are. I expected that people who post here would attempt to be respectful, at least to people who were attempting to be respectful themselves. You clearly are not that kind of person, and I truly do feel sorry for you.

Edit: By the way, it seems that after reading this page, I now realize why you respond in the way you do. Although I am not sure if you knew what my gender was before posting this (although you may figure that anyone who makes points against abortion would have to be a man, although I made points on both sides), you may very well be.... a MAN-HATER. I can honestly think of no other reason why you would respond in such a hostile manner to someone who has been attempting to reply courteously throughout his time at these forums.

reply to post by MindSpin


I'm so glad I checked back on this thread just to see you respond in such a weak pathetic way. I hope that more and more people see your weak arguments and ridiculous, illogical responses. You can not be "pro-life" if you are forgetting what we evolved from and not looking at life as a whole. Most of the "examples" you threw my way were ridiculous and didn't take into account everything I said. Only those points that you felt you could respond to "sarcastically" and what you presume to be "cleverly." Might be time to shrink that huge ego!

Everything has been said already, so:

Of course a fertilized egg is a potential human.
So is an egg and sperm on their way to fertilization.
Which also means a date is a potential human.
And the movie and drinks and bed.
Hell, everything is a potential human.

Of course we are playing God when we abort.
Our whole lives are manipulated and maintained by our own inventions and interventions.
We've been playing God for quite some time now.
Because apparently God Himself sure hasn't been doing so great lately.

The difference between murder and abortion is vast.
An unborn baby is merely potential. An adult has been a lifetime investment.
An adult's life is incredibly more important than an infant's.
Throwing away a packet of seeds is notthe same as cutting down a redwood or rainforest.

I was adopted.
I'm glad to be here (sometimes) so I thank my biological mother for giving me up to a family that could take care of me. And they have very well. But if I'd been aborted I wouldn't be around to care if I was or aborted or not, and certainly would have been spared the possible and often horrific life of an unwanted child.

Abortions shouldn't be casual--and if you've ever actually talked to someone who has gone through an abortion, they are't. And they shouldn't be a form of retroactive birth control.

But: life is overrated!
Life isn't that sacred and precious--it's all over the place! We can't stop it no matter how hard we've tried.
Plants grow from a seed, bloom, die, and become compost out of which to grow once again.
Falling out of your mom takes no skill.
We are helplessly alive!

So respect life, of course. Especially other poeple's.
But to slavishly reproduce and fight to keep everyone and everything alive even artificially, with no regard for the planet as a whole, is well, suicidal.

I am PRO-LIFE, PRO-CHOICE, and PROPHYLACTICS!

reply to post by 22ndsecond


I'm glad to know that I was on your mind enough for you to come back and check on me


I'm also glad you just decided to attempt to attack me (weak attempt) instead of trying to address any of my arguments...that says a whole lot.


Have a good day.