Pro-abortion is, obviously, the opposite of pro-life, whereby you support abortion. That was obvious- please don't try to take the topic somewhere else...
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: fictionised
Pro-abortion is, obviously, the opposite of pro-life, whereby you support abortion. That was obvious- please don't try to take the topic somewhere else...
Except it's an inaccurate name, and describes a position that no one holds, to my knowledge.
More importantly, as you accuse ME of going off-topic:
What's your point?
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: fictionised
Pro-abortion is, obviously, the opposite of pro-life, whereby you support abortion. That was obvious- please don't try to take the topic somewhere else...
Except it's an inaccurate name, and describes a position that no one holds, to my knowledge.
More importantly, as you accuse ME of going off-topic:
What's your point?
If you're not supporting the life of the child, then you're supporting the death- there isn't an in-between, where you sometimes do and sometimes don't- if that's the case, then the latter equates to being the former anyway.
As for my point, it's been the same for the duration of my posts- read through the previous posts, and you'll see my point, that abortion isn't justified since we don't know at which point a fetus becomes a human- my opinion is at conception, other views are that it is when it develops a brain, but I already argued that with no response. Go read the previous pages.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
the statement i responded to was not made by you:Originally posted by: fictionised
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: fictionised
Pro-abortion is, obviously, the opposite of pro-life, whereby you support abortion. That was obvious- please don't try to take the topic somewhere else...
Except it's an inaccurate name, and describes a position that no one holds, to my knowledge.
More importantly, as you accuse ME of going off-topic:
What's your point?
If you're not supporting the life of the child, then you're supporting the death- there isn't an in-between, where you sometimes do and sometimes don't- if that's the case, then the latter equates to being the former anyway.
As for my point, it's been the same for the duration of my posts- read through the previous posts, and you'll see my point, that abortion isn't justified since we don't know at which point a fetus becomes a human- my opinion is at conception, other views are that it is when it develops a brain, but I already argued that with no response. Go read the previous pages.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Jadow
all you that are pro-abortion can have that belief, because of course, you weren't aborted.
-----------------------------------
But since you decided to jump in, why don't you tell me what it means?
Your argument above is fallacious - I have no position on what should happen to a given pregnancy. Clearly I do not carry a placard that reads 'abort all babies'; therefore i am not 'pro-abortion' nor am i 'pro-death'. If a woman told me she was planning to have an abortion, all else being equal, I would neither say 'good for you' nor ''you're going to hell'; it's frankly none of my business. That's my position.
BTW, Cyclo at least has made some good arguments in this thread.
Next time then, how about clarifying which statement you're responding to? Might make things a little easier on everyone...
As for your sweeping argument (which is never a good thing to do in such a discussion), my argument isn't fallacious. It's really quite simple. By taking no stance, you're merely displaying no sign to disagree with an action, and so in a case like this (and in many other scenarios, such as someone standing in front of you killing another person in their house- you sit back, because you take no side, here...), is just as bad as the action being supported. The right for a human to live is everyone's business- I cannot see any reason in saying it's the "mother's choice"- there are too many variables that hold ground, such as what about the father (should there be a father)- he has every bit as much right as the woman does to decide whether the child lives, then there's the fact that it is the CHILD who should be given the right to live, just as we are given this same right. If one cannot afford the right to one human being, how is it justifiable that they themselves have this same right?
As for your sweeping argument (which is never a good thing to do in such a discussion), my argument isn't fallacious. It's really quite simple. By taking no stance, you're merely displaying no sign to disagree with an action, and so in a case like this (and in many other scenarios, such as someone standing in front of you killing another person in their house- you sit back, because you take no side, here...), is just as bad as the action being supported. The right for a human to live is everyone's business- I cannot see any reason in saying it's the "mother's choice"- there are too many variables that hold ground, such as what about the father (should there be a father)- he has every bit as much right as the woman does to decide whether the child lives, then there's the fact that it is the CHILD who should be given the right to live, just as we are given this same right. If one cannot afford the right to one human being, how is it justifiable that they themselves have this same right?
I think your statement should read:
"Thus, since we cannot logically exclude them from personhood, I believe we must grant them personhood based solely on their humanity.
There's nothing logical that appeals to me in what you said, its too much ethos and pathos. Erring on the side of life or whatever way you want to say it, doesn't have logic behind it.
I think the problem lies when we try to define when the zygote/blastocyst/embryo is an individual. It is much easier to define when it is not. For me, 1-14 days we cannot define it as an individual/personhood/...
Good points bad points there. But I'm glad you clarified that the last sentence was your own opinion- that's always nice
I think that it's at the moment of conception/fusion...there isn't a defining point of 15 days, or anything like that- cells are cells- what stops a blastocyte being different from a blastocyte that has differentiated and replicated/etc into what comes out of the uterus? They are the same thing, in my opinion
You're right - erring on the side of life appeals to common decency, not logic. If you don't have it, I can't convince you to have it. When logic is no aid, we must rely on axioms - justice and dignity in this case - to guide us. If you would err on the side of ending an innocent life, I can never, ever agree with you. Even if there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance that a zygote is a person, I would err on the side of allowing it life.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Seems to me I was pretty clear.
I've wondered about the father question, and in the end, he doesn't have to carry the child, so no, he does not have an 'equal' right of decision.
You're current argument begs the question, by assuming the truth of 'abortion is killing'; while I'm still willing to listen to arguments as to why this would be the case, you can't expect to convinc e me with an argument that assumes the truth of somethng that I don't assume the truth of too.
As for pro-abortion, you're stretching pretty hard here; what I believe is that I don't have the right, legally or morally, to interfere in a woman's decision to keep or not keep a pregnancy. Every girlfriend I've ever had has made it quite clear that if there was a pregnancy, she would keep the baby. I'm fine with that, too.
I'm glad your girlfriends are good to keep the baby. BUT, you mentioned that it solely becomes the woman's right merely because she 'carries' the baby. Let's not forget it's a 2-man job (so to speak)- the man DOES have every bit as much right as the woman, just as a woman is entitled to half a man's estate upon divorce, even if he earnt 90% of it BEFORE the marriage, so to, a man is entitled to a decision regarding the baby, even if he doesn't carry it- if he's still there, he is obviously being supportive, and wants to play a role here- it's just as much his right, and I doubt you could argue to a man over his to-be child that it's otherwise, eh?
Also, (ignoring that your grammar is slightly out
) I'm pretty sure taking the benefit of the doubt over killing a human is better than not, wouldn't you say? The mere fact that we cannot know for sure at which point WHEN a zygote/blastocyte/bunch of cells becomes human enough for us to refrain from immoral actions is questionable and also not proven on either side. I've already said that in my opinion it's at the moment of conception, when the zygote is formed/begins forming, but others disagree. I wish people would read previous posts instead of just blowing their own horn...The previous posts have SHOWN WHY I believe that abortion is killing (quick rundown, since you obviously didn't READ my previous posts on the pages posted: human = @ point of zygote/conception). Please discuss/argue against my points, and not my standpoint in general, without reading the argument itself...
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Saying that the decision includes the man's input assumes the acceptbaility of abortions in general. I'm not committing you to this position, obviously, but given that fact, how could you argue that the person with the greatest statkes in a pregnancy is not the primary decision maker?
By the way, I think assumed 50% divorce settlements are BS.
Your opinion is fine. I'm not required to accept the validity of your opinion on one matter before disagreeing with you on a second issue. I've been accused of 'not reading the thread' before. It's never a valid complaint, and it isn't a valid omplaint now. I know what you said.Also, (ignoring that your grammar is slightly out
Hey, two paragraphs that say the same thing!
You're assuming that my previous statement in itself assumes acceptability of abortion- it doesn't- it merely negates your stance that it's solely the woman's decision- it's a two part-clause. It doesn't agree with your argument, it disagrees, and leaves the second part to the following paragraph
It's call debating, where you analyse certain points, and reply, and then add a proceeding paragraph with a point to further your own argument, which I've done.Same. I know too many guys from work that have been screwed over from this thing.
Your opinion is fine. I'm not required to accept the validity of your opinion on one matter before disagreeing with you on a second issue. I've been accused of 'not reading the thread' before. It's never a valid complaint, and it isn't a valid omplaint now. I know what you said. [/quote]Also, (ignoring that your grammar is slightly out
So then basically we're agreeing to disagree, since neither stance is swaying either way? Done.
Hey, two paragraphs that say the same thing!
[/quote]
That was because I assumed you weren't reading my posts, so had to reiterate as if to reinforce that I had said those things.
Man, I swear topics like these will boost me to like 3000 posts on my post-count...
I don't know if this is the same case but the State of Florida has taken control of a 13 yr girl and forcing her to have the baby.
Might as well hog tie the biatch for the 9 month duration to make sure she can't harm the baby or herself too.
4-28-2005 Fla. Agency Gets Teen's Abortion Blocked
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - The state's social services agency was granted a court order to block an abortion for a pregnant 13-year-old girl living in a state shelter,prompting an emergency appeal Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU in its appeal on the girl's behalf cited Florida statutes that protect a minor's decision to decide on an abortion.
"No (Department of Children & Families) regulation or state law can override a constitutional right as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court," said Howard Simon, the organization's executive director for Florida.
"But putting aside the legalisms, forcing a 13-year-old to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her wishes not only is illegal and unconstitutional, it's cruel."
Might as well hog tie the biatch for the 9 month duration to make sure she can't harm the baby or herself too.
4-28-2005 Fla. Agency Gets Teen's Abortion Blocked
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - The state's social services agency was granted a court order to block an abortion for a pregnant 13-year-old girl living in a state shelter,prompting an emergency appeal Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU in its appeal on the girl's behalf cited Florida statutes that protect a minor's decision to decide on an abortion.
"No (Department of Children & Families) regulation or state law can override a constitutional right as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court," said Howard Simon, the organization's executive director for Florida.
"But putting aside the legalisms, forcing a 13-year-old to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her wishes not only is illegal and unconstitutional, it's cruel."
I am against abortion for convenience.
I am against the "right" to abort a child up until the Mother leaves the hospital, suggested by Representative Nancy Pelosi.
I am generally against abortion but feel that it should be allowed in cases of:
The first one will be abused by many with low morals, but I feel it needs to be allowed.
The second will also be abused and has a sizeable grey area. Thus, it needs to be the woman's choice.
The last one is a tough one because it has such a huge grey area and even larger unknow factor.
Still, no one should have carte blanch to perform an abortion because it is not convenient nor should anyone be forced give birth to a child conceived under extraordinary circumstances.
Once again the radical left and radical right will label me the opposite. So be it.
I am against the "right" to abort a child up until the Mother leaves the hospital, suggested by Representative Nancy Pelosi.
I am generally against abortion but feel that it should be allowed in cases of:
- Rape (which covers this case)
Where the Mother's life is in jeopardy
and even if it is not likely that the child will ever have any chance for even a partially normal life.
The first one will be abused by many with low morals, but I feel it needs to be allowed.
The second will also be abused and has a sizeable grey area. Thus, it needs to be the woman's choice.
The last one is a tough one because it has such a huge grey area and even larger unknow factor.
Still, no one should have carte blanch to perform an abortion because it is not convenient nor should anyone be forced give birth to a child conceived under extraordinary circumstances.
Once again the radical left and radical right will label me the opposite. So be it.
The radical left and the radical left may oppose you. If it makes you feel that we are radical, good for you.
You haven't even proven your case that abortion is murder. Even so, whats more moral? To give birth to a child that will live in povery and resort to life in crime or abort it before it even has a brain?
It's stupid to assume that couples don't put thought into having an abortion. I don't feel that anyone this sick exsists.
You haven't even proven your case that abortion is murder. Even so, whats more moral? To give birth to a child that will live in povery and resort to life in crime or abort it before it even has a brain?
It's stupid to assume that couples don't put thought into having an abortion. I don't feel that anyone this sick exsists.
He didn't say that but you are infering it would be Eutopia. Are you going to raise all the children up and out of poverty personally yourself???
If not, who are you to make the decision for others bodies???
He did say it and no, I made no such implication. I believe you know what to do with your strawman, however.
This wasn't your argument. You clearly stated "To give birth to a child that will live in povery and resort to life in crime".
This is your problem. You're completely incapable of stringing together even a cursory argument, instead relying on idiotic anecdotes to try to persuade someone. It might work with the chumps in high school. Good luck once you go to college, and bollocks to any college that would let you in.
The baby will be born prematurely
It will be retarded!!Q!!@#@!#
We need to stop this insanity or else we have a bunch of tards in life and it ain't pretty
All you prolife people, how about try to adopt cows, chickens, pigs? if you have that much spare time to try to do a world some good. By all means, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. No one is going to criticize you either so haveaveryniceday!.
*cough* *cough* *cough*.
It will be retarded!!Q!!@#@!#
We need to stop this insanity or else we have a bunch of tards in life and it ain't pretty
All you prolife people, how about try to adopt cows, chickens, pigs? if you have that much spare time to try to do a world some good. By all means, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. No one is going to criticize you either so haveaveryniceday!
.*cough* *cough* *cough*.
Remember kids, don't do drugs. This ^^^^^ is why.Originally posted by: RobCur
The baby will be born prematurely
It will be retarded!!Q!!@#@!#
We need to stop this insanity or else we have a bunch of tards in life and it ain't pretty
All you prolife people, how about try to adopt cows, chickens, pigs? if you have that much spare time to try to do a world some good. By all means, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. No one is going to criticize you either so haveaveryniceday!
*cough* *cough* *cough*.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter