This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
...Are we talking about chocolate chip cookies here, or full on chocolate- white chocolate- macadamia nut monster cookies? Just so I know what I am voting for.
Post by
Ksero
quoting becuase it got lost in the above,
1)Imposing your morals on another group is wrong.
2)Denying a woman a chance to get an abortion is imposing your morals on them.
3)Therefore, denying the woman the chance to get an abortion is wrong.
I understand that the pro-life stance thinks the woman is imposing her morals on the fetus, which they view as having the same rights as someone who has been born. The problem is, a fetus is not a newborn, physiologically (see what i said), they are different, to say they are the same is literal untruth.
The argument is not that they are completely the same- it is that they are both humans and both children, and should be treated as such. There are physical differences between an infant and a toddler as well. One is made of a lot less cells than the other, and looks different- less developed. A toddler left alone in a house for a week might be mobile enough to find food and water and live, and infant would just die. A toddler has more cognitive ability, understands more and is more measurably intelligent than an infant. But one is not afforded more rights or considered less human than the other.
I have in the past gone through all of the differences people use to explain why a fetus is different than a child, and how if you evaluate those same differences in other settings,
none of them have an effect on how human we consider someone. The only one left standing is that they had not physically been born yet, and there was no reason as to WHY that meant they were not human.
Please stop treating me like I'm stupid, i have explained why the difference between a newborn and a toddler, is not the same as the difference between a fetus and a newborn multiple times. The difference is a fetus cant survive without the umbilical cord or advanced medical equipment, while a newborn can, its body is ready to be put into the world, it has developed.
Let me put it simply, A chicken, is not a chicken until it hatches from the egg. until that point it is an egg nothing more.
edit: Side note: i posted some stuff in caps earlier, it doesn't mean yelling, I was frustrated that people would intentionally respond to my post, but never to the point i was trying to make, it happened 5 posts in a row, so i used caps so they could see the important part.
Post by
MyTie
Removed(##RESPBREAK##)2060##DELIM##Sas148##DELIM##This was entirely unnecessary...
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Let me put it simply, A chicken, is not a chicken until it hatches from the egg. until that point it is an egg nothing more.
This brings up an interesting point. An egg can survive just fine without a mother. Other than a certain degree of temperature regulation and protection from predators, it's very much self-sustaining. And so if being biologically dependant on a mother is what makes a fetus not a separate human being, by those standards isn't the egg actually a separate being? How then are you making the analogy here?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Well, Ksero, this is the first time that I have spoken to you at all in this thread, and the first day I have posted in the forums at all in a couple of months, so I'm not sure what it is you think that I have been saying to you that deserved that kind of reaction. I wasn't attempting to treat you like you were stupid- I was reading that one post you made, and responding with counterpoints. Civilly. I expect you to do the same.
On topic:
To further evaluate your point, why does the complexity of the machinery have any bearing on whether the person should be kept alive? What is the the reasoning WHY that makes someone not a person? You have clearly outlined what the differences are- what I would like to hear is why that matters.
Also, to say that an infant can survive on its own is not entirely accurate. If it does not receive fluid that is either made by by its mother's body or by a complicated manufacturing process, it will die. It is not mobile, it cannot feed itself, change itself, handle its own sicknesses or protect itself from danger. An infant is still 100% reliant on another person to care for it or it will die. However, if a mother refuses to care for it, refuses to feed it, she has committed a crime.
If your reasoning is that a fetus depends 100% on the mother to survive, and so isn't its own life form, then doesn't the fact that an infant is still 100% reliant on an adult to survive mean that someone would have the same right to refuse to feed them because it infringed on their own rights? Why do we legally and morally recognize the obligation of a mother to care for an infant- and charge her with murder if she doesn't feed it and it dies- but not recognize a similar obligation before it is born. Why is one morally alright, and the other murder, in your opinion- what separates them? If the mother's right to not be relied upon for sustenance and survival is what decides whether the fetus has full rights, then shouldn't any refusal by a mother to care for her children (not to harm, but to just not feed or wash or protect in any manner) still be her right?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
hatman555
because you are being very combative.
Lol and I'm sure you just love it when people call you out on being distasteful and nasty when you did nothing they assumed you did.
I've been nasty a few times times on these forums. It would probably only take one hand to count those times. I've also been called out for being nasty when I was. I try not to be, but if I ever am, I fully expect people to express their opinions.
I've also said stuff in a purely joking form and gotten called out for it as well. In those moments I try and take a step back, look at how someone could have read what I wrote in a nasty way, and then try and express myself differently/better as to not come off looking like an ass.
You wrote: "I find it highly disrespectful that you even attempt to make it about yourself."
We read: "I find it disrespectful that you care about your lost child
You meant: "I find it highly disrespectful that you make a women's right to choose about yourself"
If you know this then why do you keep going?
I know this now, because you explained yourself after my first post, and while I was writing my second post. I think everyone understands what you meant now. I still feel what you said was nasty even though you didn't mean to write it that way. I think you understand that to since you have been apologizing too.
I think we are all on the same page now, and even though some of us do not have cookies, our over all understanding is better.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
Ksero
Let me put it simply, A chicken, is not a chicken until it hatches from the egg. until that point it is an egg nothing more.
This brings up an interesting point. An egg can survive just fine without a mother. Other than a certain degree of temperature regulation and protection from predators, it's very much self-sustaining. And so if being biologically dependant on a mother is what makes a fetus not a separate human being, by those standards isn't the egg actually a separate being? How then are you making the analogy here?
I was making the analogy to illustrate that if you break that egg, before the chicken hatches itself out of it, it will not survive. the difference is the egg has all the nutrients packed inside it, while the umbilical cord supplies the human fetus with nutrients that mother takes in. If a human fetus could survive outside the body, without the mother, abortion would be needless, as the fetus, once developed could be adopted by a family who was in the right situation for a child. But since a human requires the mothers' womb to grow inside, it cant work that way.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Let me put it simply, A chicken, is not a chicken until it hatches from the egg. until that point it is an egg nothing more.
This brings up an interesting point. An egg can survive just fine without a mother. Other than a certain degree of temperature regulation and protection from predators, it's very much self-sustaining. And so if being biologically dependant on a mother is what makes a fetus not a separate human being, by those standards isn't the egg actually a separate being? How then are you making the analogy here?
I was making the analogy to illustrate that if you break that egg, before the chicken hatches itself out of it, it will not survive. the difference is the egg has all the nutrients packed inside it, while the umbilical cord supplies the human fetus with nutrients that mother takes in. If a human fetus could survive outside the body, without the mother, abortion would be needless, as the fetus, once developed could be adopted by a family who was in the right situation for a child. But since a human requires the mothers' womb to grow inside, it cant work that way.
1) An egg is already outside of its mother's body, surviving. You're not talking about removing it from a mother and seeing if it survives- you're talking about smashing a separate thing and killing it. If a child was in a stroller, helpless inside, but protected by the warmth and shielding it offered, and you smashed the stroller, you'd probably kill the child inside as well. The egg has already been "born," in terms of being no longer dependent on a separate being- it's just still developing on its own and is in an egg while it's vulnerable. The analogy doesn't really fit, because the main contention is that the reason it's not the same is because a fetus is still inside the mother. It's an intermediate stage of development that doesn't apply to people.
2) The question of whether it is a chicken or an egg is irrelevant because neither has an inherent right to life. If there was, Chik-fil-a would be out of business. There is no moral issues involved with the difference between a chicken and an egg. The discussion about whether a fetus deserves human rights revolves around what it is about humans that morally obligate us to offer them rights above and beyond animals in the first place. What this debate revolves around is the sanctity of human life, what it is about human life that deserves to be protected, and whether the differences between a fetus and an infant are such that they remove the qualities that make us value human life in the first place. It doesn't matter if there are differences between a fetus and an infant if none of those differences are relevant to the qualities that set human life apart.
A chicken and an egg are different, but both are regarded to have the same place in the world- on a plate.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Ksero
Well, Ksero, this is the first time that I have spoken to you at all in this thread, and the first day I have posted in the forums at all in a couple of months, so I'm not sure what it is you think that I have been saying to you that deserved that kind of reaction. I wasn't attempting to treat you like you were stupid- I was reading that one post you made, and responding with counterpoints. Civilly. I expect you to do the same.
So apparently I am addicted to Wowhead forums, and watching them for 6 weeks without saying anything is about my limit. Maybe would have worked better if I didn't have to read everything to mod
It doesn't seem farfetched at all after reading this that you would have read my posts yesterday, especially cause you felt strongly enough about something in this thread to respond.
I have been nothing but patient with people who directly insult me, as i do my best to explain myself over and over again, I'm sorry if get frustrated when i have to answer the same thing mutliple times in one day.
On topic:
To further evaluate your point, why does the complexity of the machinery have any bearing on whether the person should be kept alive? What is the the reasoning WHY that makes someone not a person? You have clearly outlined what the differences are- what I would like to hear is why that matters.
medical technology is not a biological process. it has no bearing on whether or not someone is a person.
Also, to say that an infant can survive on its own is not entirely accurate. If it does not receive fluid that is either made by by its mother's body or by a complicated manufacturing process, it will die. It is not mobile, it cannot feed itself, change itself, handle its own sicknesses or protect itself from danger. An infant is still 100% reliant on another person to care for it or it will die. However, if a mother refuses to care for it, refuses to feed it, she has committed a crime.
You're stretching my point, all i said was ITS BODY is developed, and ready to enter the world, i specifically said i knew it couldn't care for itself. But physiologically a newborn has everything it needs. while a fetus does not. i never said more than this.
If your reasoning is that a fetus depends 100% on the mother to survive, and so isn't its own life form, then doesn't the fact that an infant is still 100% reliant on an adult to survive mean that someone would have the same right to refuse to feed them because it infringed on their own rights? Why do we legally and morally recognize the obligation of a mother to care for an infant- and charge her with murder if she doesn't feed it and it dies- but not recognize a similar obligation before it is born. Why is one morally alright, and the other murder, in your opinion- what separates them? If the mother's right to not be relied upon for sustenance and survival is what decides whether the fetus has full rights, then shouldn't any refusal by a mother to care for her children (not to harm, but to just not feed or wash or protect in any manner) still be her right?
read the above.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ksero- what is it about a human being that makes it not an animal- what qualities do you feel we have that make human life something that no one has a right to take away (or at least not without a good cause)? I think that maybe I am not being clear enough in the distinction I am trying to make, and so I want to make sure we're on the same page. Since I actually haven't been in this particular thread before today for some time, I apologize if you said this before.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Ksero
Humans are animals, the only difference between us and the lower order animals are the complex social constructs we have created. The only reason we have a right to life is because we want it to be there. If some highly advanced alien species came to colonize earth, so smart that we had the relative intelligence of a chicken to them, I'm sure they wouldn't give a %^&* about our "right to life."
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Humans are animals, the only difference between us and the lower order animals are the complex social constructs we have created. The only reason we have a right to life is because we want it to be there. If some highly advanced alien species came to colonize earth, so smart that we had the relative intelligence of a chicken to them, I'm sure they wouldn't give a %^&* about our "right to life."
So in your opinion, do you think that the idea of humans having a "right to life" is less of an innate moral obligation, and more of a social contract so that civilization can function?
Post by
MyTie
Humans are animals, the only difference between us and the lower order animals are the complex social constructs we have created. The only reason we have a right to life is because we want it to be there. If some highly advanced alien species came to colonize earth, so smart that we had the relative intelligence of a chicken to them, I'm sure they wouldn't give a %^&* about our "right to life."
There are no objective rules applied, with this view. There are no supreme and self evident rights. There are simply our perspectives, and how we apply them. That's a sad way to look at things, but that's becoming the increasingly popular way of viewing the world, morality, and life itself. Subjectivity. Throughout history, this has always been the unpopular way of seeing things. However right, or wrong, people have always ascribed some sort of inherent value in right and wrong, life and death. But, this view, that is becoming more and more prevalent, that we are simply how we see ourselves, and what we feel, is scary, because I have no idea where it leads, but it can't lead any place moral.
Post by
Ksero
Humans are animals, the only difference between us and the lower order animals are the complex social constructs we have created. The only reason we have a right to life is because we want it to be there. If some highly advanced alien species came to colonize earth, so smart that we had the relative intelligence of a chicken to them, I'm sure they wouldn't give a %^&* about our "right to life."
So in your opinion, do you think that the idea of humans having a "right to life" is less of an innate moral obligation, and more of a social contract so that civilization can function?
pretty much, yeah. I think it's extremely selfish that humanity thinks of itself as having more of a right to live than any other species on this planet.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Humans are animals, the only difference between us and the lower order animals are the complex social constructs we have created. The only reason we have a right to life is because we want it to be there. If some highly advanced alien species came to colonize earth, so smart that we had the relative intelligence of a chicken to them, I'm sure they wouldn't give a %^&* about our "right to life."
So in your opinion, do you think that the idea of humans having a "right to life" is less of an innate moral obligation, and more of a social contract so that civilization can function?
pretty much, yeah. I think it's extremely selfish that humanity thinks of itself as having more of a right to live than any other species on this planet.
Ok- well then based on that, then there really isn't too much more I can debate with you. If you don't think that there's anything wrong with killing people inherently, other than the destabilizing factor it has on society, then I can't think of anything that arguing the finer points of science and humanity would accomplish here.
Post by
Ksero
Humans are animals, the only difference between us and the lower order animals are the complex social constructs we have created. The only reason we have a right to life is because we want it to be there. If some highly advanced alien species came to colonize earth, so smart that we had the relative intelligence of a chicken to them, I'm sure they wouldn't give a %^&* about our "right to life."
So in your opinion, do you think that the idea of humans having a "right to life" is less of an innate moral obligation, and more of a social contract so that civilization can function?
pretty much, yeah. I think it's extremely selfish that humanity thinks of itself as having more of a right to live than any other species on this planet.
Ok- well then based on that, then there really isn't too much more I can debate with you. If you don't think that there's anything wrong with killing people inherently, other than the destabilizing factor it has on society, then I can't think of anything that arguing the finer points of science and humanity would accomplish here.
You took that the complete wrong way, My point was there is just as much of a problem with killing a monkey, or chicken, or fish as there is with killing a human.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think she understood that. Discussing the intricacies of whether killing a fetus is murder is meaningless if you don't don't give any weight to the killing of any other humans.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I understood, Ksero. But if there is nothing special about human life, then there is no reason not to kill them when it is convenient. We don't let people torture animals legally here, but we do let people euthanize them if it is too expensive to care for them, or they don't want them anymore. We let people kill them for food, for clothing, for decorations. If humans have no more importance than that, then even if we were to agree on whether it was "human enough" you would still see no problem killing a person because it was more convenient to do so. As such, there is no reason for me to attempt to have this debate, because there are no common points on which to hinge it. I don't know how to convince someone killing innocent people is wrong- it's too far outside my own thought processes to try and understand the how someone would believe it isn't.
Unless your argument is that killing any living creature is murder?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Ksero
Well you said (see bold)Humans are animals, the only difference between us and the lower order animals are the complex social constructs we have created. The only reason we have a right to life is because we want it to be there. If some highly advanced alien species came to colonize earth, so smart that we had the relative intelligence of a chicken to them, I'm sure they wouldn't give a %^&* about our "right to life."
So in your opinion, do you think that the idea of humans having a "right to life" is less of an innate moral obligation, and more of a social contract so that civilization can function?
pretty much, yeah. I think it's extremely selfish that humanity thinks of itself as having more of a right to live than any other species on this planet.
Ok- well then based on that, then there really isn't too much more I can debate with you
. If you don't think that there's anything wrong with killing people inherently, other than the destabilizing factor it has on society
, then I can't think of anything that arguing the finer points of science and humanity would accomplish here.
You construed me as someone with no care for human life, the opposite is true, all life is valuable, the reason i see no issue with abortion, is the same reason i have no problem breaking an egg, they are potential for life, not life itself. yes i do realize that they are both "alive" but i mean it in the way that, until the egg hatches it is not a chicken, it has chicken DNA, but it is not a chicken. the same way a fetus has human DNA, but it is not a human until it is fully developed and born.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.