A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Can an embryo exist and thrive outside of a uterus? No. It cannot. Like I said before, it doesn't matter if it is alive or not, and for the sake of this argument, I am going to concede that it is alive.

And why should environment be the determinant on what is human life and what is not? Can a newborn baby survive for hours in the dessert in 100+ degree heat and in direct sunlight? Can a grown man? Should it matter that one can and one can't?

Your line of thinking seems very primitive. It's a arbitrary test, to see if something is "alive" or not. It reminds me of tying a witch to a stone and dropping her in a lake to see if she is a witch or not.

Can it survive the process of being born? What makes a scheduled pre-term birth at 39 weeks different from a pre-term birth at 12 weeks?

Many full term fetuses can't survive the process of being born...that is why we now have C-sections. So now instead of environment for your test of if a fetus is alive or not...you have now moved to a physical test of traveling down the birth canal to see if it is "alive" or not.

So are you now claiming that only babies that were vaginally delivered are actually alive? Those that had to be delievered by C-section failed your test and are no longer "alive"?

Again...your position is creating logical problems for you left and right. I have yet see you point out a logical problem with my definition of life beginning at conception.

You might be surprised to know that many newborns live and thrive in intense heat and sun. I've seen it myself in Ecuador and Sudan. This isn't the conversation for human adaptation.

I have no problem with fetal interventions. Cut those fetuses out of they can't survive a vaginal birth. Being born simply means emerging from the uterus, not travelling down the birth canal.

My position remains logical while your attempts to discredit it are becoming more and more disheveled.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by seabag

 

Anti-choice equals female slavery as breeding machines for the state. There is nothing sacred about biology and we work to overthrow it at every turn. As is our right to do so.

Females are breeding machines...so are men...we are built to breed, I'm sorry...but that is nature.

Did you just say you work to overthrow biology?

Are you suggesting there is something sacred about humans? I swear you just said there wasn't.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

My position remains logical while your attempts to discredit it are becoming more and more disheveled.

Really? Because your position forces you to say that a dying premature baby before a certain week of gestation is not "alive"...even though it is moving, has a heartbeat, and has a brain and brain waves. You haven't really defined what that premature baby is...it is a moving mass of cells that has a heart beat and brain waves...but according to you it isn't alive...but you haven't said what it is.

Please, just clarify your "logical position"...because it has twisted and turned and changed many times since we started this discussion.

Please give me a summary of what your definition of the "beginning of human life" is.

reply to post by firemonkey


We are able to grow skin and other organs in the laboratory. We can grow meat for consumption in laboratories. We dam rivers to regulate water and create electricity to power our machines. We create flying machines so that we can fly and cars that go over 100 per hour.

We find cures for disease and create contact lenses so people can see better.

Even the lessons from Jesus are based on overthrowing biology. He was born of virgin and rose from the dead. Bypassed the fermentation process to make wine from water and overthrew gravity by walking on water.

Why do you think biology is so sacred? Why shouldn't humans do what they were designed to do, manipulate and control nature?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by firemonkey

 

We are able to grow skin and other organs in the laboratory. We can grow meat for consumption. We dam rivers to regulate water and create electricity to power our machines. We create flying machines so that we can fly and cars that go over 100 per hour.

We find cures for disease and create contact lenses so people can see better.

Even the lessons from Jesus are based on overthrowing biology. He was born of virgin and rose from the dead. Bypassed the fermentation process to make wine from water and overthrew gravity by walking on water.

Why do you think biology is so sacred? Why shouldn't humans do what they were designed to do, manipulate and control nature?

None of that is "overthrowing" biology...it is using biology and other sciences to our advantage.

But ignoring biology to make yourself feel better about your own opinions...that is just intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Because "murder" consists of plotting and killing someone who has a legal status in the world. Usually carried out with foul motives. And to be clear, you cant call abortion murder if you cant legally pinpoint when foetus becomes a human with a legal identity.

Murder is just a legal term...legality can change...so why not change it?

Murder is not just a legal term, its a premeditated act to kill another human being, which is unlawful.

And the reason they dont change it is because its in societies interest to deter murder, therefore there is a hefty sentence for those who commit it.

Cannibalism is illegal because eating other human beings would contribute to the spread of diseases.

Only if they were diseased themselves...logically if we have a food problem in places...why not just eat humans? Logically it is a valid solution.

Logically, you could just grow more food, or isnt that logical enough for you?

The reason you don't want either of those legal is because of "morals"

No... The reason i dont want any of them legal is because one would make society MORE unsafe and the other WOULD contribute to the spread of disease. Dont twist my words.

...which are not logical.

Nothing in your counter-argument so far is logical... or even challenges the OP you're referring to.

So when people start saying "logic" is the reason they support abortion, I see it as them using "logic" to attempt to justify their neglect of "morals" they would hold in a similar situation.

I have never personally referred to abortion as logical, nor have i seen other members of this board put it in those terms. The argument is based on human rights, logically if you cant be classed as a human being, you dont have rights, therefore you are at the mercy of your host.

That statement defeats the purpose of what you're trying to say. Logic usually wins hands down, without the use of logic human's may have never "progressed" to this point.
While you're replying to my post, could you actually try and poke holes in my assumptions of what banning birth control and abortions would lead to? Do you accept that there would be:

Logic only provides if a conclusion is true or false, it doesn't provide if it right or wrong.

Indeed. Not sure what your point is though? Actually offended that you seem to be trying to give me a lesson on the difference between Logic and Morals.. Its almost like you've made up an argument FOR ME, you haven't actually challenged what i said in my OP that you're referring to.

Example: If I owe someone money but don't want to pay them, it logically works out that if I kill them then I don't have to pay them. It's not the right thing to do, but logically it is solid.

If you're a crazy person unable to reasonably think and operate in a civil society, then yes, that sounds like perfect "logical" thinking.

However, for someone as sane as myself, i would say that your example is pretty flawed and out-right crazy.

You or I can't predict what the consequences would be of banning abortion,

Yes i can.
Women would STILL seek them. This would lead to a rise in backstreet abortions. Do you contest my thinking on this point?

we can make guesses...but we can't know for sure.

Difference between a guess and an EDUCATED guess.

A lot of it would depend on the punishments for getting an illegal abortion or performing an illegal abortion.

You'd think the current legal system would prove to you that fear of punishment is not enough to deter people from committing crimes. And the fact that you further want to punish women who seek abortions really does show your true colours. From what ive seen of your character, i hope you never hold any positions of influence.

Ultimately, I don't care about the consequences if it is the right thing to do.

Riggggggggggggght.

So, do you agree or not that banning contraception and abortions would lead to an increase in birthrate, poverty and backstreet abortions? Do you think we live in a society that could viably support people with larger families?

Answer my questtionnsss.

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

My position remains logical while your attempts to discredit it are becoming more and more disheveled.

Really? Because your position forces you to say that a dying premature baby before a certain week of gestation is not "alive"...even though it is moving, has a heartbeat, and has a brain and brain waves. You haven't really defined what that premature baby is...it is a moving mass of cells that has a heart beat and brain waves...but according to you it isn't alive...but you haven't said what it is.

Please, just clarify your "logical position"...because it has twisted and turned and changed many times since we started this discussion.

Please give me a summary of what your definition of the "beginning of human life" is.

No. You are saying that my position says that.

It is a fetus or an embryo, depending on the age of the tissue. Those are the definitions. Those definitions do not in and of themselves include that word "living". That is meaning that you have given them that I do not.

I'm not about to give a definition of the 'beginning of human life' as it doesn't mean anything within the context of my opinion.

Preterm Birth is Pre-Term birth, whether it is 2 weeks out or 39 weeks out. If one is a viable option, 39 weeks, then the other is a viable option, 2 weeks. Nothing that has been stated counters that opinion.

reply to post by firemonkey

None of that is "overthrowing" biology...it is using biology and other sciences to our advantage. But ignoring biology to make yourself feel better about your own opinions...that is just intellectually dishonest.

Alright then, we are conquering biological mysteries and using that knowledge to advance our goals to live better and longer than nature intended. Understanding biology, and not worshiping it in a fateful way, is the key to our future survival.

You're emotionally attached to fatalistic female biology as if it's sacred law. Scientifically, human life is no different than animal life. Placing human biology above all other life forms in value is intellectually dishonest. A fertilized egg has no greater biological significance in the big picture than an ant. No body screams murder when you step on an ant, a living a being in it's own right.

reply to post by windword

Anti-choice equals female slavery as breeding machines for the state. There is nothing sacred about biology and we work to overthrow it at every turn. As is our right to do so.

Believe me, there are many days I wish I could make the choice to extinguish some lives. I admire the power women have.

However, nobody should have the power to choose to take life in a civilized society; not me and certainly not some promiscuous, selfish, irresponsible pregnant woman.

Just my $.02.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

I'm not about to give a definition of the 'beginning of human life' as it doesn't mean anything within the context of my opinion.

You aren't going to give a definition of when life begins...but you are going to state what is "alive" and what is not?

That is interesting...and it just shows how confused you seem to be on this subject.

Originally posted by seabag
However, nobody should have the power to choose to take life in a civilized society; not me and certainly not some promiscuous, selfish, irresponsible pregnant woman.
Just my $.02.

Because that's how all women who seek abortions are

/sarcasm

You should know when you start making such ridiculous generalizations you take away from any good points you did actually make in the thread.

Men dont understand what it feels like to be pregnant so they should stop talking about abortion like they know what's best, when all they know is what's good for them.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by firemonkey

 

None of that is "overthrowing" biology...it is using biology and other sciences to our advantage. But ignoring biology to make yourself feel better about your own opinions...that is just intellectually dishonest.

Alright then, we are conquering biological mysteries and using that knowledge to advance our goals to live better and longer than nature intended. Understanding biology, and not worshiping it a fateful way, is the key to our future survival.

You're emotionally attached to fatalistic female biology as if it's sacred law. Scientifically, human life is no different than animal life. Placing human biology above all other life forms in value is intellectually dishonest. A fertilized egg has no greater biological significance in the big picture than an ant. No body screams murder when you step on an ant, a living a being in it's own right.

So why does an adult human have more significance than an ant?

Or more to the point...why does a females "life" have more significance than a fetus?

Originally posted by firemonkey
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I'm not about to give a definition of the 'beginning of human life' as it doesn't mean anything within the context of my opinion.

You aren't going to give a definition of when life begins...but you are going to state what is "alive" and what is not?

That is interesting...and it just shows how confused you seem to be on this subject.

I was asked questions and I answered. The conversation got too far away from my point so I steered it back. Some would find that an admirable trait in intellectual discourse, some seem to find it contemptible.

To each his own.

And like many others, when you have nothing left to say about my postition, you attack me instead.

Stay classy.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Because that's how all women who seek abortions are

/sarcasm

You should know when you start making such ridiculous generalizations you take away from any good points you did actually make in the thread.

I rarely make any good points.

I certainly didn’t mean everyone, but it sure seems like that describes the most vocal pro-choice proponents; spoiled, self-indulgent children who don’t want to cut into party time (Casey Anthony comes to mind).

Men dont understand what it feels like to be pregnant so they should stop talking about abortion like they know what's best, when all they know is what's good for them.

I know what’s best for the life that getting terminated. I’m a father and a defender of life.

reply to post by Bone75


Too many people on this earth as it is. What will be, will be. In other words, what won't "be," won't.

Why don't some of you worry about your grandchildren's future without precious resources. Plenty will be born to die in the future. Maybe a few less on earth would be helpful. I don't think God has the ability to bring back rainforests in a generation. Why put humans on such a high pedestal when they are not viable without precious resources?

Pro-lifers can't seem to see the forest for the trees.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Because that's how all women who seek abortions are

/sarcasm

You should know when you start making such ridiculous generalizations you take away from any good points you did actually make in the thread.

I rarely make any good points.

I certainly didn’t mean everyone, but it sure seems like that describes the most vocal pro-choice proponents; spoiled, self-indulgent children who don’t want to cut into party time (Casey Anthony comes to mind).

All types of women seek abortions, that's just how it is.

Men dont understand what it feels like to be pregnant so they should stop talking about abortion like they know what's best, when all they know is what's good for them.

I know what’s best for the life that getting terminated. I’m a father and a defender of life.

You know what's best for you, f**k the host eh? Doesnt matter what she might want. She could have had 3 kids, whats 1 more on top of that eh?

Men do not belong in abortion debates.

reply to post by seabag

However, nobody should have the power to choose to take life in a civilized society; not me and certainly not some promiscuous, selfish, irresponsible pregnant woman.

Just my $.02.

But civilized society does pick and choose who should live every day.

There you go, blaming and accusing the woman of being promiscuous, selfish and irresponsible. Now let's punish her for not emulating your religious morality by forcing her to give birth.

Fact: 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

How is it irresponsible or selfish to not want a child and therefore, use birth control? You think that if birth control fails, she should just suck it up and have a baby. You're claiming that a sexually active woman who doesn't want children is selfish?

The decision to have children is always based on selfishness. People plan for and have children for purely selfish reasons. There is no other reason to have children but selfish desire.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I'm sorry, but you do seem confused...it's not an attack...it's an observation. If you take it as an attack, that says more about yourself than it does about my observation.

How can I talk about your position when you are now refusing to clearly state it?

You are refusing to define when human life begins, but you have said multiple times when you think something isn't alive. You have moved from it not being alive when it is in utero, to it only being alive when it can "assimilate nutrients", to it only being alive after a certain week of gestation, to now you aren't going to define when it is alive or not.

Can you honestly read that and say it doesn't sound confusing?


I like things simple...life begins at conception...period. If you see a logical/scientific/moral problem with my position...please point it out. If not, on what basis do you disagree with my position?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Men do not belong in abortion debates.

Do you believe men should be responsible for supporting a child they produce?

If yes, do you see any double standard in your thinking?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Intentional

Misfire!!