NationStates

Owlrusopia wrote:

... Who told you that a fetus isn't alive...? A fetus is most definitely alive.

Bacteria, viruses, and sperm could all be qualified as being alive. Please don't arrest me for washing my hands.

That's because they ARE alive.

I have no problem with you saying that. What I do have a problem with is false statements like "foetii are not alive". They are. They are also humans. Legally, they are not persons.

Grenartia wrote:

Norstal wrote:Yes.

It's a simple concept, really. Kill fetus good. Kill infants bad.

So, the deciding factor is whether or not it passed through a vagina?

That is the absolute stupidest criteria I've ever heard.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but its possible to be born without passing through a vagina...

Dyakovo wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
So, the deciding factor is whether or not it passed through a vagina?

That is the absolute stupidest criteria I've ever heard.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but its possible to be born without passing through a vagina...

Oh, come on. You know perfectly well what he meant.

my postnatal abortion idea never took off

(haha didnt realise that was actually an option)

Nulono wrote:

Galloism wrote:Since when does a right to live trump another person's bodily integrity?

I need a kidney. You're a match. By the way, the government is going to make you give me one of yours, or you go to prison.

Sound good?

Except you're conflating positive and negative rights.

Not really...

Alixanderia wrote:

Nulono wrote:
But a 22+ week old fetus is viable.

The fetus has a negative right to live, the right to not be killed. The specific method of killing is irrelevant.

It can't be killed. Only removed. It is not a person, and thus has no "right" to use a woman's body against her will.

Even if it was a person it wouldn't have that 'right'...

Nulono wrote:

Alixanderia wrote:It can't be killed. Only removed. It is not a person, and thus has no "right" to use a woman's body against her will.

A fetus can't be killed? What do you mean by that?

I'm confused by that as well...

Dyakovo wrote:

Alixanderia wrote:It can't be killed. Only removed. It is not a person, and thus has no "right" to use a woman's body against her will.

Even if it was a person it wouldn't have that 'right'...

I'm more curious about her statement that a foetus is not alive.

Keronians wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I hate to be the one to break it to you, but its possible to be born without passing through a vagina...

Oh, come on. You know perfectly well what he meant.

I pretty certain I know what he meant, but considering some of the other ridiculous things posted ITT, I figured better safe than sorry...

Dyakovo wrote:

Keronians wrote:
Oh, come on. You know perfectly well what he meant.

I pretty certain I know what he meant, but considering some of the other ridiculous things posted ITT, I figured better safe than sorry...

C-section babies aren't persons.

You born yesterday or something?

Galloism wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I pretty certain I know what he meant, but considering some of the other ridiculous things posted ITT, I figured better safe than sorry...

C-section babies aren't persons.

You born yesterday or something?

I'm not a person?!

Owlrusopia wrote:

... Who told you that a fetus isn't alive...? A fetus is most definitely alive.

Bacteria, viruses, and sperm could all be qualified as being alive. Please don't arrest me for washing my hands.

Actually, if I remember correctly from science classes many moons ago, I don't think viruses are considered "alive."

Keronians wrote:

Galloism wrote:C-section babies aren't persons.

You born yesterday or something?

I'm not a person?!

Come on nonperson, off to the labor camp with you.

Oh, uh, I'll be coming along too.

Keronians wrote:

Galloism wrote:C-section babies aren't persons.

You born yesterday or something?

I'm not a person?!

No, you're not. Though that has nothing to do with you being a zipper baby...
*nods*

Dyakovo wrote:

Keronians wrote:I'm not a person?!

No, you're not. Though that has nothing to do with you being a zipper baby...
*nods*

Zipper baby?

I like that.

*writes that down*

Actually, if I remember correctly from science classes many moons ago, I don't think viruses are considered "alive."

"I don't think" being the key phrase in your statement. It's a matter of definition in the case of the virus. It's most certainly alive when it has successfully infected you. I might rephrase and say that "am I a murderer for having my immune system kill a virus?" to be completely accurate.

Either way, you dodged the actual point there. A lot of things are alive. Killing them isn't the same as killing a human being. You're also missing the bigger picture(s), wherein we are in an overpopulated world getting even more overpopulated as we speak; with the vast majority of inhabitants being poor, and a massive amount of people without a proper water source or enough food to disqualify them from the label "starving" according to the UN.

"You're not a person 'till you're in my phone book." - Bill Hicks

Owlrusopia wrote:

Actually, if I remember correctly from science classes many moons ago, I don't think viruses are considered "alive."

"I don't think" being the key phrase in your statement. It's a matter of definition in the case of the virus. It's most certainly alive when it has successfully infected you. I might rephrase and say that "am I a murderer for having my immune system kill a virus?" to be completely accurate.

Either way, you dodged the actual point there. A lot of things are alive. Killing them isn't the same as killing a human being. You're also missing the bigger picture(s), wherein we are in an overpopulated world getting even more overpopulated as we speak; with the vast majority of inhabitants being poor, and a massive amount of people without a proper water source or enough food to disqualify them from the label "starving" according to the UN.

"You're not a person 'till you're in my phone book." - Bill Hicks

Boy you showed whoever you were talking to with all that. Give yourself a cookie, then give me one.

By the way, I looked it up. Feelings are mixed. Some say viruses are a chemical compound, while others say it "straddles the fence of life". Not the greatest sources of good argument.

Owlrusopia wrote:

Actually, if I remember correctly from science classes many moons ago, I don't think viruses are considered "alive."

"I don't think" being the key phrase in your statement. It's a matter of definition in the case of the virus. It's most certainly alive when it has successfully infected you. I might rephrase and say that "am I a murderer for having my immune system kill a virus?" to be completely accurate.

Either way, you dodged the actual point there. A lot of things are alive. Killing them isn't the same as killing a human being. You're also missing the bigger picture(s), wherein we are in an overpopulated world getting even more overpopulated as we speak; with the vast majority of inhabitants being poor, and a massive amount of people without a proper water source or enough food to disqualify them from the label "starving" according to the UN.

"You're not a person 'till you're in my phone book." - Bill Hicks

I actually have high hopes for humanity. So high, in fact, that I dont think we need to resort to abortions to keep the population in check. I honestly believe there will be a paradigm shift in our lifetime that will change the world.

Galloism wrote:

Dyakovo wrote:I pretty certain I know what he meant, but considering some of the other ridiculous things posted ITT, I figured better safe than sorry...

C-section babies aren't persons.

You born yesterday or something?

I know this hot girl in my class who was a C-section. *contemplates raping her for teh awesomeness* /notfuckingserious]

Bottle wrote:

Grenartia wrote:I never said it wasn't ok not to have sex. I'll be the last person to say that. I'm just saying take some damn responsibility. If you can't afford/don't want a kid, put the woman on the pill, and make the dude wear a condom.

1 oz. Prevention = 1 lb. Cure

Its that fucking simple.

You gonna provide contraception for free? One in six Americans will struggle with hunger, my friend, so let's not bullshit about this. I can buy a week's worth of groceries for the same amount as a box of condoms. When I was on the Pill, it cost me about a buck a pill, and that's not counting the routine doctor's visits I was required to go to in order to keep getting the 'script refilled.

well it costs a hell of a lot more to get an abortion buddy, I don't want to here your complaining. If you cant afford to have a baby then take an alternative route. If you can't take that route that just master bathe!!!!!

Sivonaa wrote:If you can't take that route that just master bathe!!!!!

Some of us don't have a whirlpool.

Galloism wrote:

Sivonaa wrote:If you can't take that route that just master bathe!!!!!

Some of us don't have a whirlpool.

I so need to zig that.

Hallistar wrote:

Wikipedia and Universe wrote:In the hopes of stopping a threadjack here, I have made yet another abortion debate thread. Basically, the debate is about whether fetuses are real people, or whether by that logic if wanking and periods are murder, etc, etc, etc.

Here are the posts:

Thoughts^TM?

I have mixed views on abortion, I think that while it should be allowed, it should be heavily restricted, perhaps less restrictions if the population skyrockets even more but the way doctors abort some of these babies including sticking a tube in them and sucking out their brains, butchering it flat out, etc, is just sickening.

So you'd support logical term limits, ethics/methodical regulations, and more safeguards against conflicts of interest?

I personally think that after a certain period after which the unborn can survive outside the uterus, what is now referred to as "viability", a time window should be taken allowing greater viability and an artificial birth or "live abortion" be performed with the goal of life preservation, both of the bearer and the fetus. After this point it would be incubated and if not wanted then parental rights can be signed away.

Owlrusopia wrote:

... Who told you that a fetus isn't alive...? A fetus is most definitely alive.

Bacteria, viruses, and sperm could all be qualified as being alive. Please don't arrest me for washing my hands.

Bacteria and sperm are alive. Viruses are not. None of these are human beings.

Dyakovo wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
So, the deciding factor is whether or not it passed through a vagina?

That is the absolute stupidest criteria I've ever heard.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but its possible to be born without passing through a vagina...

Don't be a smartass. You know what he meant.

Dyakovo wrote:

Nulono wrote:Except you're conflating positive and negative rights.

Not really...

Really?
Do you even know the difference between positive and negative rights?

Owlrusopia wrote:

Actually, if I remember correctly from science classes many moons ago, I don't think viruses are considered "alive."

"I don't think" being the key phrase in your statement. It's a matter of definition in the case of the virus. It's most certainly alive when it has successfully infected you. I might rephrase and say that "am I a murderer for having my immune system kill a virus?" to be completely accurate.

Either way, you dodged the actual point there. A lot of things are alive. Killing them isn't the same as killing a human being. You're also missing the bigger picture(s), wherein we are in an overpopulated world getting even more overpopulated as we speak; with the vast majority of inhabitants being poor, and a massive amount of people without a proper water source or enough food to disqualify them from the label "starving" according to the UN.

"You're not a person 'till you're in my phone book." - Bill Hicks

1. No, even inside you the virus is not alive.
2. The fetus is a human being.
3. Why not kill born people to fix overpopulation.
4. Teenagers are likely not in your phonebook. Are we not persons?

Galloism wrote:

Owlrusopia wrote:
"I don't think" being the key phrase in your statement. It's a matter of definition in the case of the virus. It's most certainly alive when it has successfully infected you. I might rephrase and say that "am I a murderer for having my immune system kill a virus?" to be completely accurate.

Either way, you dodged the actual point there. A lot of things are alive. Killing them isn't the same as killing a human being. You're also missing the bigger picture(s), wherein we are in an overpopulated world getting even more overpopulated as we speak; with the vast majority of inhabitants being poor, and a massive amount of people without a proper water source or enough food to disqualify them from the label "starving" according to the UN.

"You're not a person 'till you're in my phone book." - Bill Hicks

Boy you showed whoever you were talking to with all that. Give yourself a cookie, then give me one.

By the way, I looked it up. Feelings are mixed. Some say viruses are a chemical compound, while others say it "straddles the fence of life". Not the greatest sources of good argument.

Whomever. And the current consensus is that a virus is simply a protein strand capable of co-opting living cells to replicate itself.

Sivonaa wrote:

Bottle wrote:You gonna provide contraception for free? One in six Americans will struggle with hunger, my friend, so let's not bullshit about this. I can buy a week's worth of groceries for the same amount as a box of condoms. When I was on the Pill, it cost me about a buck a pill, and that's not counting the routine doctor's visits I was required to go to in order to keep getting the 'script refilled.

well it costs a hell of a lot more to get an abortion buddy, I don't want to here your complaining. If you cant afford to have a baby then take an alternative route. If you can't take that route that just master bathe!!!!!

Huh?

Hallistar wrote:I have mixed views on abortion, I think that while it should be allowed, it should be heavily restricted, perhaps less restrictions if the population skyrockets even more but the way doctors abort some of these babies including sticking a tube in them and sucking out their brains, butchering it flat out, etc, is just sickening.

Does it really matter how someone is killed? Are there methods of abortion you prefer? (BTW, there are methods of abortion that are crueler than PBA.)

Wikipedia and Universe wrote:

Hallistar wrote:
I have mixed views on abortion, I think that while it should be allowed, it should be heavily restricted, perhaps less restrictions if the population skyrockets even more but the way doctors abort some of these babies including sticking a tube in them and sucking out their brains, butchering it flat out, etc, is just sickening.

So you'd support logical term limits, ethics/methodical regulations, and more safeguards against conflicts of interest?

I personally think that after a certain period after which the unborn can survive outside the uterus, what is now referred to as "viability", a time window should be taken allowing greater viability and an artificial birth or "live abortion" be performed with the goal of life preservation, both of the bearer and the fetus. After this point it would be incubated and if not wanted then parental rights can be signed away.

Viability varies based on the available medical technology, which varies from location to location and from time period to time period. Why should it determine basic human rights?