What causes pregnancy?

[shira]

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.

You're confusing "human life" with "personhood." A human life (for example, a fertilized egg) is not a person.

People laugh. People express ideas. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Zygotes don't do a lot of laughing, thinking, or being happy.

 

[guyver01]

Zygotes don't do a lot of laughing, thinking, or being happy.

I dunno... i think i see a smile

 

[HAL9000]

You're confusing "human life" with "personhood." A human life (for example, a fertilized egg) is not a person.

People laugh. People express ideas. People have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Zygotes don't do a lot of laughing, thinking, or being happy.

I'm talking talking about Zygotes as human life, or people, We've been through this. That guy was talking about the right to life for people.

 

[HAL9000]

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.

Yes it is.

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!

Yes it is.

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.

No.

"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.

There is one monolithic difference between a sperm/ a stem cell/ an unfertilised egg and a zygote.

The first lot will not become people if left to their own devices, if things remain exactly as they are.

A Zygote could.

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

I don't care about laws in the US or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[Sureshot324]

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.

The laws of personal property exist because they make society work better and people are happier because of those laws. If in a special case it is beneficial for those laws to be broken, then they should be broken. If someone is poor and starving, I don't think it's necessarily wrong for them to steal from a rich person. The ultimate goal is the overall happiness of the human race. Laws and rights are merely tools to achieve that goal.

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.

It boils down to the rights of an individual vs the well being of society as a whole, and I would always choose the well being of society.

The world population is around 6 billion. Would it be better if that doubled so that twice as many people could experience the wonder of life? Maybe, but the average quality of life would probably be lower, since there would be less resources to go around. I would say there's an ideal world population where the maximum number of people get to experience life without there being significant degradation of quality of life due to lack of resources.

If you have an abortion, and then later on have a child, the net effect is equal. You are depriving one person of going through the joy of life, and giving it to another person. I agree with you that life is the most valuable thing of all, and without it nothing else matters. I don't agree that once a person has been born, it is important that that specific person lives out a full natural life. It's just important that a lot of people are alive.

 

[HAL9000]

The laws of personal property exist because they make society work better and people are happier because of those laws. If in a special case it is beneficial for those laws to be broken, then they should be broken. If someone is poor and starving, I don't think it's necessarily wrong for them to steal from a rich person. The ultimate goal is the overall happiness of the human race. Laws and rights are merely tools to achieve that goal.



It boils down to the rights of an individual vs the well being of society as a whole, and I would always choose the well being of society.

The world population is around 6 billion. Would it be better if that doubled so that twice as many people could experience the wonder of life? Maybe, but the average quality of life would probably be lower, since there would be less resources to go around. I would say there's an ideal world population where the maximum number of people get to experience life without there being significant degradation of quality of life due to lack of resources.

If you have an abortion, and then later on have a child, the net effect is equal. You are depriving one person of going through the joy of life, and giving it to another person. I agree with you that life is the most valuable thing of all, and without it nothing else matters. I don't agree that once a person has been born, it is important that that specific person lives out a full natural life. It's just important that a lot of people are alive.

My point is regardless of how you rationalise who gets life and who doesn't you don't have the right to make those decisions once the process has begun.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

So when is an abortion permissable? At what stage of development?

 

[Sureshot324]

My point is regardless of how you rationalise who gets life and who doesn't you don't have the right to make those decisions once the process has begun.

And you do?

 

[Atreus21]

Yes it is.



Yes it is.



No.



There is one monolithic difference between a sperm/ a stem cell/ an unfertilised egg and a zygote.

The first lot will not become people if left to their own devices, if things remain exactly as they are.

A Zygote could.



I don't care about laws in the US or anywhere else for that matter.

An egg is a potential human being. A sperm is a potential human being. A fertilized egg is a human being at the very earliest stage of development. The difference between a fertilized egg and a child 5 seconds away from being born is a difference in age and nothing else.

A fertilized egg is a potental adult.

 

[HAL9000]

And you do?

No I don't, that's the point. No one does.

An egg is a potential human being. A sperm is a potential human being. A fertilized egg is a human being at the very earliest stage of development.

A fertilized egg is a potental adult.

Agreed.

 

[Sureshot324]

My point is regardless of how you rationalise who gets life and who doesn't you don't have the right to make those decisions once the process has begun.

Can we please stop using the word right? It is meaningless without stating the justification behind it. What is your point here?

 

[HAL9000]

Can we please stop using the word right? It is meaningless without stating the justification behind it. What is your point here?

No one has the should be morally allowed to choose who lives and who doesn't.

 

[Sureshot324]

No one has the should be morally allowed to choose who lives and who doesn't.

Why not?

You changed the wording but you are still not providing any justification to what you are saying.

 

[HAL9000]

Why not?

You changed the wording but you are still not providing any justification to what you are saying.

I have done that for the last 5 pages, swing back.

Out of curiosity, why do you think someone has the right to choose who lives and who dies?

 

[guyver01]

I have done that for the last 5 pages, swing back.

You cannot use circular reasoning. Try again.

 

[HAL9000]

You cannot use circular reasoning. Try again.

I haven't re-read.

 

[guyver01]

Out of curiosity, why do you think someone has the right to choose who lives and who dies?

Why do YOU think YOU have the right to tell another human being what they can and cannot do with their own body?

After you post that response, please have your female "friend" register here, so we can ask her whether she agrees or disagrees with the the fact you think YOU have control over what she does and does not do.

 

[HAL9000]

Why do YOU think YOU have the right to tell another human being what they can and cannot do with their own body?

After you post that response, please have your female "friend" register here, so we can ask her whether she agrees or disagrees with the the fact you think YOU have control over what she does and does not do.

right to Life > right to choose what you do with your body

That's not going to happen, also, she agrees with me we've had this discussion recently. Bet that's inconvenient for you

 

[guyver01]

That's not going to happen, also, she agrees with me we've had this discussion recently.

Bullshit.

All we have is your word on it... and... that's not enough.

I highly doubt any rational, sane female would say she freely gives up the right to her own body.

If she does... she's as fucked up in the head as you are, and you two deserve each other in that mental institution you two live in.



You are off for awhile for this personal attack

The system has autobanned you


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Sureshot324]

I have done that for the last 5 pages, swing back.

Out of curiosity, why do you think someone has the right to choose who lives and who dies?

As I have stated many times, the word right means nothing to me. I make the best decisions I can based on the information available to me. If that decision results in someone's death, so be it. Take military peace keeping missions for example. When the UN goes on a peace keeping mission, some people will likely die as a direct result of their actions, and others will be saved. They have decided that it's worth it. Would you say they don't have the right to make that decision?

 

[Atreus21]

As I have stated many times, the word right means nothing to me. I make the best decisions I can based on the information available to me. If that decision results in someone's death, so be it.

Yes, so be it, and you'll be guilty of murder unless you use very specific criteria for who gets killed and why.

Take military peace keeping missions for example. When the UN goes on a peace keeping mission, some people will likely die as a direct result of their actions, and others will be saved. They have decided that it's worth it. Would you say they don't have the right to make that decision?

Of course they do. War is an example where killing is necessary. People who wrongfully get killed in this case are an unfortunate consequence, and an accident.

Deliberate abortion is the neither accidental nor necessary killing of an innocent that is entirely avoidable, except in cases of rape.

 

[Atreus21]

Why do YOU think YOU have the right to tell another human being what they can and cannot do with their own body?

On the same basis that we tell them they cannot use their body to murder already born humans.

 

[HAL9000]

Bullshit.

All we have is your word on it... and... that's not enough.

I highly doubt any rational, sane female would say she freely gives up the right to her own body.

If she does... she's as fucked up in the head as you are, and you two deserve each other in that mental institution you two live in.

Go fuck yourself, how will another account coming from my IP change anything?

As I have stated many times, the word right means nothing to me. I make the best decisions I can based on the information available to me. If that decision results in someone's death, so be it. Take military peace keeping missions for example. When the UN goes on a peace keeping mission, some people will likely die as a direct result of their actions, and others will be saved. They have decided that it's worth it. Would you say they don't have the right to make that decision?

The difference is this isn't a indirect effect of your actions it's a direct effect.



You are becoming a nuisance here to the rest of the forum. I suggest you use your time of to look at what you are doing here.

If you continue to post as you do, you will be treated the same as any number of trolls that frequent this forum.

This vacation was given by the system autoban.

esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[guyver01]

Go fuck yourself

you first.

oh wait.

you already do.

 

[HAL9000]

you first.

oh wait.

you already do.

regularly. You have no idea who my fiancee is or what she is like, so STFU.