What causes pregnancy?

[fskimospy]

Parasites aren't self sustaining and yet they are life...

You misunderstand the term 'self sustaining', by which I am referring to the ability of an organism to maintain homeostasis, etc. Not whether or not it needs food.

 

[fskimospy]

The reason murder is illegal is that it deprives people of their right to life, it's nothing to do with mass fear.

Also I'm not in America. I'm not going to just "live with" something that is wrong happening in the world, I'm going to discuss it and hopefully be a part of the change that is happening over the world as we speak.

This is clearly untrue, as murder has been illegal throughout human history, even in societies that have not recognized a general right to life of its citizens. It has everything to do with mass fear.

I know you're not in America. You don't have to live with it, it was more a suggestion for your own good. Oh, and it's not wrong.

 

[HAL9000]

I think that is ultimately what is behind a lot of this discussion. The whole debate ultimately boils down to who should have control.

There are a lot of terrible things that happen each day that people ignore. I think if we start thinking about why this one issue in particular seems to be so "special" it might reveal something about ourselves.

A valid point, for me the reason this one issue is "special" is because it involves life, and life is special IMO.

You misunderstand the term 'self sustaining', by which I am referring to the ability of an organism to maintain homeostasis, etc. Not whether or not it needs food.

I feel like I need to abandon this conversation as I don't know enough about biology to continue it.

This is clearly untrue, as murder has been illegal throughout human history, even in societies that have not recognized a general right to life of its citizens. It has everything to do with mass fear.

I know you're not in America. You don't have to live with it, it was more a suggestion for your own good.

Well the reason behind the illegality of murder is rather irrelevant, the fact is that we do in modern society believe in the right to life so that matters.

Oh, and it's not wrong.

In your opinion.

 

[shira]

Rather than utterly hijack Gigantopithecus' thread about third party candidates, I will create this topic instead.

My argument on abortion.

A woman does not have the right to kill anyone except in self-defense. Killing your unborn child, then, is only permissable when you've been raped or in any event did not consent to the act which brought about pregnancy.

The response from the pro-choice side: Sex doesn't cause pregnancy.

Then what does? The implantation of a fertilized egg? In other news, guns don't cause deaths. Bullets aimed at hearts do.

I'd like to know who honestly believes this notion, and furthermore their justification for it.

My mind is insufficient to the task of adequately describing the incongruity of this defense, so I have to resort to metaphor.

Your premise is false. Ergo your entire argument is false.

Your premise that a fertilized egg is an "unborn child" is patently false. A viable, 6+-month old fetus is an "unborn child;" a fertilized egg is not.

Oh, and your statement that the pro-choice position is that sex doesn't cause pregnancy is laughable.

Are there any more false arguments you wish to foist on us?

 

[HAL9000]

Your premise is false. Ergo your entire argument is false.

Your premise that a fertilized egg is an "unborn child" is patently false. A viable, 6+-month old fetus is an "unborn child;" a fertilized egg is not.

Unborn child, perhaps not, but a potential child it is. It has far greater potential to become a child than almost anything else.

 

[her209]

A woman dies during child birth. Do we charge the newborn with negligent homicide/manslaughter?

 

[HAL9000]

A woman dies during child birth. Do we charge the newborn with negligent homicide/manslaughter?

No I don't think we do.

 

[her209]

No I don't think we do.

Should we?

 

[HAL9000]

Should we?

No we shouldn't.

 

[her209]

No we shouldn't.

And why not?

 

[HAL9000]

And why not?

A couple of reasons:

1) To be born is not a decision (as far as we are aware)
2) New borns are not legally responsible for their actions.
3) The child would be born even if it were dead and the woman would die in child birth.
4) New borns are not capable of making the decision to kill AFAIK

 

[her209]

A couple of reasons:

1) To be born is not a decision (as far as we are aware)
2) New borns are not legally responsible for their actions.
3) The child would be born even if it were dead and the woman would die in child birth.
4) New borns are not capable of making the decision to kill AFAIK

1) If we're forcing pregnant women to have unwanted children then child birth isn't a decision either.
2) Newborns should be charged with negligent homicide/manslaughter because newborns aren't legally responsible for their actions. Circular reasoning.
3) Charge the woman with negligent homicide/manslaughter if she lives.
4) Negligent homicide/manslaughter != Making a decision to kill

Basically, if we're going to protect the life of the baby from the mother, then the reverse should be true, protect the life of the mother from the baby.

 

[HAL9000]

1) If we're forcing pregnant women to have unwanted children then child birth isn't a decision either.
2) Newborns should be charge with negligent homicide/manslaughter because newborns aren't legally responsible for their actions. Circular reasoning.
3) Charge the woman with negligent homicide/manslaughter if she lives.
4) Negligent homicide/manslaughter != Making a decision to kill

1) It is a decision as women get to choose to have sex (with the exception of rape obviously)
2) Circular yes, false no.
3) What?
4) They aren't capable of making any decisions nor are they considered responsible for their actions.

 

[shira]

Unborn child, perhaps not, but a potential child it is. It has far greater potential to become a child than almost anything else.

A "potential child" is not a "person." The mental defect among the anti-abortion crowd is that they do not seem to be able to understand the difference.

 

[HAL9000]

A "potential child" is not a "person." The mental defect among the anti-abortion crowd is that they do not seem to be able to understand the difference.

I understand the difference, I don't consider a potential child a person... yet.

 

[shira]

I understand the difference, I don't consider a potential child a person... yet.

When a "potential child" becomes a viable fetus, it also becomes an "unborn child" and therefore a person.

The anti-abortion crowd thinks zygotes are babies. They're insane.

 

[HAL9000]

When a "potential child" becomes a viable fetus, it also becomes an "unborn child" and therefore a person.

The anti-abortion crowd thinks zygotes are babies. They're insane.

I'm anti-abortion and I think a zygote is a potential child.

 

[Miscthree]

I wonder if the prolifers would change their tune if the world population continues on it's upward spike and there's no more resources left. Maybe then, the prolifers would do us all a favor and kill themselves for the good if the world.

 

[shira]

I'm anti-abortion and I think a zygote is a potential child.

In what sense are you "anti-abortion?" Are you also anti-choice?

If you agree that a pre-viability fetus isn't a person, then on what grounds do you oppose allowing women in the first trimester (or, with added restrictions, in the second trimester) to get abortions, if that's what they want?

 

[HAL9000]

In what sense are you "anti-abortion?" Are you also anti-choice?

If you agree that a pre-viability fetus isn't a person, then on what grounds do you oppose allowing women in the first trimester (or, with added restrictions, in the second trimester) to get abortions, if that's what they want?

I'm against the destruction of a potential person. The greater potential something has the more I value it.

 

[Sureshot324]

The reason murder is illegal is that it deprives people of their right to life, it's nothing to do with mass fear.

Yes but what is the 'right to life' really? A right is basically a thing that we have arbitrarily decided that all humans should have. The definition for a right is actually quite similar to the definition for a law, which you have already stated you don't care about. They are both rules for society created by humans.

A right, like a law, must be justified by a reason. For example, we have the right to freedom of speech, and this can be justified by discussing the benefits of freedom of speech (helps promote new ideas, makes govt more accountable). We have the right to a good education, which results in a better economy and thus a better standard of living.

What is the reason for the right to life? Other than the reasons I have already mentioned, there are none. If a fetish is created and destroyed shortly after, it's as if it never existed. There is no drawback to this. We fear death and as a result believe death itself is morally wrong, but it is not. Living beings die to make room for new living beings. It's a natural part of life.

 

[HAL9000]

Yes but what is the 'right to life' really? A right is basically a thing that we have arbitrarily decided that all humans should have. The definition for a right is actually quite similar to the definition for a law, which you have already stated you don't care about. They are both rules for society created by humans.

A right, like a law, must be justified by a reason. For example, we have the right to freedom of speech, and this can be justified by discussing the benefits of freedom of speech (helps promote new ideas, makes govt more accountable). We have the right to a good education, which results in a better economy and thus a better standard of living. However, in very poor countries people do not have the right to an eduction as this would be a waste of resources (debatable of course).

What is the reason for the right to life? Other than the reasons I have already mentioned, there are none. If a fetish is created and destroyed shortly after, it's as if it never existed. There is no drawback to this. We fear death and as a result believe death itself is morally wrong, but it is not. Living beings die to make room for new living beings. It's a natural part of life.

The right to life comes from the fact that life is the greatest value we have about ourselves, our existence and the right to exercise our existence to love, to learn to laugh is life. You argue that we have freedom of speech to promote new ideas or that it makes government more accountable. I argue that without life those things would be irrelevant, we have the right to life so that we can progress humanity, so that we can invent, create, save and destroy, so that the world can progress and so that everyone in the world can experience the progression, the highs and lows of existence.

 

[matt0611]

Yes but what is the 'right to life' really? A right is basically a thing that we have arbitrarily decided that all humans should have. The definition for a right is actually quite similar to the definition for a law, which you have already stated you don't care about. They are both rules for society created by humans.

A right, like a law, must be justified by a reason. For example, we have the right to freedom of speech, and this can be justified by discussing the benefits of freedom of speech (helps promote new ideas, makes govt more accountable). We have the right to a good education, which results in a better economy and thus a better standard of living.

What is the reason for the right to life? Other than the reasons I have already mentioned, there are none. If a fetish is created and destroyed shortly after, it's as if it never existed. There is no drawback to this. We fear death and as a result believe death itself is morally wrong, but it is not. Living beings die to make room for new living beings. It's a natural part of life.

A person owns their own body, they control it, they have their own will. Its only logical that each person owns their own body.
Killing them is destroying their own property. I don't see this as arbitrary at all.
That's how I justify it. Each person has a right to their own property, their own production and fruits of their labor, their own life and liberty.

 

[HAL9000]

A person owns their own body, they control it, they have their own will. Its only logical that each person owns their own body.
Killing them is destroying their own property. I don't see this as arbitrary at all.
That's how I justify it. Each person has a right to their own property, their own production and fruits of their labor, their own life and liberty.

This works too.

 

[shira]

I'm against the destruction of a potential person. The greater potential something has the more I value it.

A stem cell is a potential person, too, given the right environment. So by your reasoning, killing a stem cell should be against the law.

In fact, an unfertilized egg is a potential person. Quick, bring it a sperm and force it into a woman's uterus before it dies!

A young man is about to orgasm in his girlfriends vagina. They're not using birth control. In order to prevent pregnancy, he's about to pull out before he comes. Stop him! Prevent him from pulling out! A "potential person" might never be born.

"Potential person" is laughable because of all the pre-conditions that must exist before a "potential" person becomes an actual person. In the examples I've just given, all I've done is add a step or two at the start of the series of events. My "potential person" has just as "great" a "potential" as your "potential person." So according to you, you value it just as much.

People have rights under the law and under the Constitution. "Potential people" aren't mentioned anywhere.