Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

reply to post by Sinnthia


I fail to see its irrelevance. You never said how. You're words are not right because they are your words. Define your terms.

Your choices end where another human being is, so long their existence does not endanger your own..

Ok, being my comment, I will change it to make people like you understand it more obviously.

Your choices end where another human being is, so long their existence is not immediatly going to end your own..

End of story.

reply to post by Gorman91


I accept your apology and applaud you for admitting your argument was so terribly flawed that the only way to defend it was to completely change it. That takes guts.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Welcome to the wonderful world of logic based thinking. Get morals out of your way and any need to defend your own points and make it precisely true or false. Maybe looking at the world in black and white is a bad thing. But I've not yet come up with any real problems with it. There can be no gray.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

So are smokers, so are factory workers, etc etc. Welcome to humanity. We risk our lives to do things. That's no reason to change. By having sex out of free will you are accepting the risks and dangers. And if those risks and dangers are assured to lead to your death, you have the right to opt out at that moment. You don't have a right to terminate life that comes about as a result of that free will and pursuit of happiness because it's annoying or an inconvenience. We conveniently provided many sources of protection for both you and the man involved. If you chose to ignore them, tough luck. But if you're about to die, we have to act to save A life. You have a right to life liberty and a pursuit of happiness, You have no rights to be happy, you must reach that through your choices and wise decision making.

I am still a hardcore smoker at 51 and I have worked in factories when I grew up in Germany. Exactly, "nothing ventured, nothing gained" and yes, we -me included- do take some stupid risks, but hey we are all human and humans are known to fail, but we are also known to re-bounce and be on top of the food-chain. We have come far in just under 2 million years; I wonder if we will manage to survive together, as human beings and Earth citizens, rather than divided in stupid nationalities. We would get of Planet Earth much faster that way. They good news is we have about a billion years time to migrate outwards, because when our Sun (our Star) goes into it's reg giant's phase at the end of it's life, we better be somewhere on some Jupiter or Saturn moons. About risks and stupid risks we take as human beings, it's stupid, but all too human. Yes, I agree that every individual makes it's own private decisions about those things. I am not sure what the argument is here; maybe we should go back to the basic premise of the op?

Originally posted by Gorman91
Ergo, your point is nor valid, as the choice was made to take on that risk a long long time before the child became a risk.

I agree! For me it's all about choice! "Do not judge lest ye be judged"!

Originally posted by Gorman91
Technically my existence at this very moment is endangering you. At any moment an electrical signal might come off my body, by random chance hit you, and by random chance kill you. This is not warding off topic. it's simple common sense. Risk and danger is not the same as "holy crap I'm going to die if this pregnancy doesn't end today". Please do not twist my words, you should know full well what they mean.

Could you elaborate further, please? I think I don't understand the point you are trying to make? Well, the possibility that indeed such an electrical is on it's way somewhere is very low. So, all very hypothetical and I don't see the conclusion to this?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of logic based thinking. Get morals out of your way and any need to defend your own points and make it precisely true or false. Maybe looking at the world in black and white is a bad thing. But I've not yet come up with any real problems with it. There can be no gray.

I love reason and logical thinking. What, no may be? What about a 3rd choice there? Not all logical statements are only restricted to true or false. Yeah, between black and white there are countless shades of grey. Imagine that!

reply to post by Gorman91




You constant shifting and personal attacks are unconvincing at best.

Beginners Biology

Please educate yourself a little because you are saying some very uninformed sounding things. I can only handle so much abortion talk at a time. Not quite the fan some of you are. I will give you some time to learn at least some basic biology. Specifically consentrate on reproduction.

reply to post by WalterRatlos


Choice starts at sex. If the choice was not made to, the life from it can't be legally defended.

reply to post by WalterRatlos


Not for murder.

reply to post by Sinnthia


I already know it. If you'd like to say where I am wrong go ahead. I'm not going to read something I already read years over.

A human is where their genes are. You are a dependency of your cells. Their potential to make you is what matters. A cell lost from rubbing your hand on a brick has no potential. A cell gained in reproduction does if it's a unique human being.

Consciousness does not matter because its a broad term defined by science culture and religion by many different people and has no constant. Brain cells do not matter because the brain cells are there from conception, just not differentiated yet. Their potential is all that matters. Because even if you say once a brain cell is there it's not ok, you are counting on the potential for those brain cells to produce a fully functioning brain decades down the road.

reply to post by byteshertz


Nice, ATSters making threads in my honour!

I understand your arguments, but my opinion is simple, Murder is wrong, murder is abortion, abortion is wrong.

I cannot defend the murder of what I see as innocent children, yet I have been flamed for these views on the thread I authored that the OP is discussing. I must commend the OP however as s/he has not taken part in the flaming, trolling and insults that have plagued that thread.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by byteshertz

 

Nice, ATSters making threads in my honour!

I understand your arguments, but my opinion is simple, Murder is wrong, murder is abortion, abortion is wrong.

I cannot defend the murder of what I see as innocent children, yet I have been flamed for these views on the thread I authored that the OP is discussing. I must commend the OP however as s/he has not taken part in the flaming, trolling and insults that have plagued that thread.

oh for crying out loud a spec of unconscious lifeless goo is not a child quit being so dramatic

reply to post by My_Reality


There is no self sufficient life everything depends on something to survive so your argument makes very little sense. From a strictly scientific approach The zygote ...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:

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


The argument here is when is it human thus making it murder. I personally believe this choice should be made by the mother it is her that has to live with her actions. How ever don't sugar coat it you are killing a life form the only reason a person would claim otherwise is to allow the woman the option to feel better. Do to the fact it is killing i don't want her to feel better i want her to realize the gravity of the situation. There are alternatives and in my opinion they should be used instead. You guys can argue all you like truth is pro choice is killing something because you choose to its not about a womans rights. No body has the right to kill anything its all about if you choose to do so and can live with those actions.

reply to post by Gorman91


The equality of humans as you descibe it is again a moral concept based on humanistic moral philosophy, there is nothing logical about it from human evolutionary standpoint. So if you claim you can justify your position only with logic and biology, and no morals, you cannot use it.

Its obvious that in average, more educated people from better backgrounds contribute more to humanity than uneducated people from worse and poor backgrounds, which are often even net takers (long-term unemployed or become criminals, or take foreign aid without contributing very much in return in case of third world people etc...). You cannot logically conclude that for humanity, the value of life of western enterpreneur or scientist should be the same as the value of life of someone in a third world ghetto.
You need to introduce some kind of moral system into the argument to justify such conclusion, pure logic wont suffice, since it simply says otherwise - different people, social classes and even populations contribute to humanity very differently, some a lot, some very little, some are even detrimental.

reply to post by Maslo


I fail to see where morals are. Isn't the point of morals to differentiate between the good and bad to your definition of what morality is? I don't differentiate. All of humanity is human. Logically, being the same, we deserve the same.

Yes actually. Logically the scientist is equal to the poor man. because they both have the same potential, being human.

You yourself said most. But some still do contribute to humanity from the lowest of the scud bucket And it is that fact that means logically, they are all the same.

All people are judged by their potential. And being human, they all have the same potential. being human and having the same potential means they are valued the same. Evolution does not pick and chose what ones are more valuable or not. It is simply the process by which the most adapt go on. All humans, having the same potential to do things, have the same right to live as a result of their conquest of evolution. Potential activities as humans are above that of evolution. It could be argues that we have conquered evolution, considering that thanks to technology and other things, we will no longer change.

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by Gorman91

 

You constant shifting and personal attacks are unconvincing at best.

Beginners Biology

Please educate yourself a little because you are saying some very uninformed sounding things. I can only handle so much abortion talk at a time. Not quite the fan some of you are. I will give you some time to learn at least some basic biology. Specifically consentrate on reproduction.

edit on 26-2-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

Yes...let's use biology.


Biology which says human life begins at conception.

Originally posted by vjr1113

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by byteshertz

 

Nice, ATSters making threads in my honour!

I understand your arguments, but my opinion is simple, Murder is wrong, murder is abortion, abortion is wrong.

I cannot defend the murder of what I see as innocent children, yet I have been flamed for these views on the thread I authored that the OP is discussing. I must commend the OP however as s/he has not taken part in the flaming, trolling and insults that have plagued that thread.

oh for crying out loud a spec of unconscious lifeless goo is not a child quit being so dramatic

edit on 26-2-2011 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)

You are correct...it is not a "child"...it is an early stage of development of human life.

I'm against killing at all stages of human life.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

Welcome to the wonderful world of logic based thinking. Get morals out of your way and any need to defend your own points and make it precisely true or false. Maybe looking at the world in black and white is a bad thing. But I've not yet come up with any real problems with it. There can be no gray.

Hmmmmm. Don't look now Mr. Spock but your self-described superior logic has hit a brick wall. BOOM! There are ALWAYS shades of gray, specifically in the case of rape or incest. Your weak logic assumes that all sex is consensual. An obvious fatal flaw from someone who seems to brandish superior intellect. Unless of course your brand of logic mandates that the unintentional mother to be must carry an unwanted child to birth? GOD's will?

I can only assume by your macho flagellation that you are a male. How ironic then that you could portend to empathize with the plight a female who aside from the trauma of rape or incest must now deal with the lifelong consequence of non-intentional / non-consensual sex. Weak sauce, EPIC FAIL. Using your logic Colonel Sanders was sympathetic the plight of his chickens after they were fried.

Oh and BTW, I am a guy so don't ask me to "run along" and exit the thread. I service what I sell.

Your entire argument fell out of the logic tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Bring it Vulcan!

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by igor_ats
Sperm and egg do not have full human dna...left to natural processes....sperm nor egg will ever develop into a human.

See this link about the natural process fallacy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

IVF is not a natural process, neither is cloning.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You tell me...what is a good enough qualifier???

I answered this here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unique DNA is not a good enough qualifier for personhood status since we can create people via cloning technology (iow not unique DNA).

Originally posted by MindSpin
How is cold hard science not good enough for you???

That's a question for you. Why should unique DNA be the basis for personhood status for the reasons given in the above link?

Why should we grant personhood to sperms and eggs? They're both human and alive right? As for the unique DNA angle see previous link.

Originally posted by MindSpin
NO...they are not.

They have human DNA and are alive. Human. . . "a human". A human ovum, a human toe. . .

They're not persons though.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You will find no biologist that will claim that sperm and egg are human and alive.

They have human DNA and are alive.

Originally posted by MindSpin
When was the last time a sperm or an egg by themselves developed into a human???

When was the last time a zygote in a test tube developed into a human by themselves?

Originally posted by MindSpin
There is a specific point when the proccess of life begins...it's the same in every animal and plant....there is no other marker. If you believe there is...please tell me what that criteria is.

Something that has the potential to become a person does not automatically become a person. A skin cell has the potential to become a person. See this link for the fallacy flowchart:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After all, you do know that spontaneous abortion is humanities biggest killler if the pro-life logic applies.

Originally posted by MindSpin
And from your other source....unique DNA as distinguished from the parent...that is what the word "unique" means in my argument. It has to be used, or people will foolishly try to claim the fetus is just a growth in the female, similar to a tumor.

Unique DNA argument is a fallacy. . . with future cloned technology, a cloned person is a still a person. A brainless organism such as a zygote embryo or fetus is not a person. See IVF.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by byteshertz

 

The baby has life once it's heart beats and when u deny it that...you murder it

Well when the baby is forming and u get an abortion it is still alive...u cant say that it is not alive or does not have life so yes its murder.

Sperm and egg are also alive, despite not having hearts it's not the quivalent of murder/manslaughter etc. when they die.

Originally posted by randomname
we all start out life when the egg is fertilized. before that you wouldn't exist. preventing someone from existing is murder. it's that simple.

and you can't deny it's life, because if it was dead it wouldn't grow.

Except we do. It's called IVF. . . why don''t prol-lifers protest outside IVF clinics?

Originally posted by randomname
well, the nazi's passed law and implemented the mass murder of millions of jews. according to their laws it was not illegal. therefore it was not murder.

It was still murder under german law, they just went ahead and did it anyway.

Why aren't pro-lifers protesting the "holocaust" that is IVF? They're people like the Jews right?

reply to post by igor_ats

See this link about the natural process fallacy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

IVF is not a natural process, neither is cloning.

When I say "natural process"....I'm not talking about sex.

Come on now...think a bit. I mean if it is left to develop without being killed...it will develop into a human. Sperm and eggs won't do that.

I don't care how it is created...but once an embryo is created...it is human life. Period.

You are stretching a bit.

I answered this here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unique DNA is not a good enough qualifier for personhood status since we can create people via cloning technology (iow not unique DNA).

Again...and I told you this before..."unique DNA" is used to distinguish it from the mother.

I don't care if they try to clone a women and place it inside her womb...the DNA will not be perfectly matched. Even "identical" twins have very very tiny differences because our DNA is mutating almost constantly on a very very small scale.

Again...you are really stretching.

That's a question for you. Why should unique DNA be the basis for personhood status for the reasons given in the above link?

You are the only one talking about "personhood"...I am talking about human life.

I am not going to start to decide which humans should be considered "persons" and who isn't. That is a slippery slope and decided by subjective opinions.

Like I said...I'll stick with objective science.

They have human DNA and are alive. Human. . . "a human". A human ovum, a human toe. . .

They're not persons though.

They contain 23 chromosomes...this is NOT DNA...check any biology book. That does not make it HUMAN. We share genetic code with many animals...that does not make them human or part human.

Further..."life" is defined by a few characteristics...one of those is the ability to reproduce...sperm can not reproduce. Sperm is not "alive". It is no more alive than a finger that gets cut off is alive.

You can't just decide that you want to change science...sperm is a part of the male...just as a piece of hair is. In fact...a piece of hair has more human DNA than sperm does.

This is basic BIOLOGY...it is clear that the BEGINING OF LIFE is when the egg is fertilized and cell division begins.

They have human DNA and are alive.

Good grief...see above. You can't just make up science as you go. :shk:

When was the last time a zygote in a test tube developed into a human by themselves?

When was the last time a human survived living in fire???

Every living thing needs it's proper environment to survive...if it dies in a hostile environment...it doesn't make it more or less "alive" while it is dying.

Something that has the potential to become a person does not automatically become a person. A skin cell has the potential to become a person. See this link for the fallacy flowchart:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

After all, you do know that spontaneous abortion is humanities biggest killler if the pro-life logic applies.

It becomes a person if it isn't killed, provided food and a compatible environment...just like any other living thing.

spontaneous abortion is just death by natural causes at a very early stage of development.

Unique DNA argument is a fallacy. . . with future cloned technology, a cloned person is a still a person. A brainless organism such as a zygote embryo or fetus is not a person. See IVF.

Again...you are misusing the term "unique DNA".

reply to post by kinda kurious


Don't much care about incest. Two people in love can do what they want. Rape is not a gray. You havea right to stop a life forced onto you. pretty well defined. No maybes. Choice violated must be restored.

Considering you poked at Rape, something irrelevant to the question of choice, it seems you have failed.