Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Mavorpen]

No I am simply saying that an unborn foetus is not a fully fledged moral agent and is unconscious regardless. It can no more choose to inhabit the womb than a rock can choose to fall. As to a foetus being as important as a rock that is just hogwash.

So, you're admitting that a fetus is no more sentient and important than a rock. But, I'm sick of you ignoring definitions. Let's look at some from the Oxford dictionary, shall we?

guilty Pronunciation: /ˈgɪlti/
Definition of guilty
adjective (guiltier, guiltiest)
culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing:
he was found guilty of manslaughter
Williams pleaded guilty to three separate offences
justly chargeable with a particular fault or error:
she was guilty of a serious error of judgement
conscious of, affected by, or revealing a feeling of guilt:
he felt guilty about the way he had treated her
a guilty conscience
causing a feeling of guilt:
a guilty secret

responsible Pronunciation: /rɪˈspɒnsɪb(ə)l/
Definition of responsible
adjective
1 [predic.] having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one’s job or role:
the cabinet minister responsible for Education
(responsible to) having to report to (a superior) and be answerable to them for one’s actions:
the Prime Minister and cabinet are responsible to Parliament
2being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it:
Gooch was responsible for 198 of his side’s 542 runs
morally accountable for one’s behaviour:
the progressive emergence of the child as a responsible being
3(of a job or position) involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others:
she had risen rapidly to a high and responsible position in the civil service
capable of being trusted:
a responsible adult

Being guilty has little to do with choice. You're wrong, yet again. But I'm sure you'll ignore this and in 5 pages you'll say, "THE FETUS CAN'T CHOOSE!"

[Samuraikoku]

Weather or not they have rights is not what is at debate but weather or not they should.

You clearly stated they have rights, despite people telling you otherwise.

[The Realm of God]

So this debate boils down to one key philosophical question.

"What does it mean to be human?"

I don't consider myself qualified to answer this.

[Mavorpen]

So this debate boils down to one key philosophical question.

"What does it mean to be human?"

I don't consider myself qualified to answer this.

No, it doesn't. It boils down to personhood and being a human being.

Edit: Even then, it has no right to force the mother to house it.

[Grinning Dragon]

"Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.What he did was wicked in the lord's sight."

As for masturbation, I already said that you are the same sex as yourself. To achieve orgasm at your own hands shows at least some level of auto eroticism, which is homosexual.

Western religions clue in on this verse as an example to shame its flock into thinking that contraception and or masturbation is a sin.
What Onan's greatest sin is, is he dishonored his brother by not fulfilling his duty to impregnate his now widowed sister in law with a son.

The earliest interpretations were straightforward. What Onan had done was dishonor his dead brother and shirk his obligations. Exactly how he frustrated the purpose of levirate marriage was irrelevant. The text emphasizes the social or legal setting, with Judah describing what Onan has to do and why. The plain reading is that Onan's sin was refusal to provide his dead brother with an heir.
The rabbis interpreted Onan's transgression as birth control through coitus interruptus. They decided what Onan had done was wasteful but not a severe sin; the punishment should be left to God. More generally, the rabbis recognized that intercourse did not always result in pregnancy, and that there could be a purpose to intercourse beyond simple reproduction, namely pleasure.

[The Realm of God]

So this debate boils down to one key philosophical question.

"What does it mean to be human?"

I don't consider myself qualified to answer this.

No, it doesn't. It boils down to personhood and being a human being.

A human being means being sentiant. I think a foetus is self aware a few weeks before birth.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

No, it doesn't. It boils down to personhood and being a human being.

A human being means being sentiant. I think a foetus is self aware a few weeks before birth.

And that's why there's a limited number of weeks beyond which you can't abort a foetus, which makes sense to me.

[Parchelon]

No i am trying to point out that there needs to be a balance between the mother and unborn child's rights.

Why? One is committing a crime, one isn't. One is considered more sentient than a rat, one isn't. Why do you keep going around in circles ignoring everything we say?

I am not ignoring everything you say, but in order for there to be a crime you need an actus reus (guilty act) and a mens rea (guilty mind), the unborn foetus might very well be committing a guilty act, but certainly has no capacity to have the guilty mind. It is firstly it is unconsciousness and secondly is only just developing a mind with witch to make decisions. And unless you are found guilty in a court of law you are seen as innocent under the law. Considering that the unborn are legally hardly even regarded as persons under the current law it is impossible to say they are even so much as guilty of a crime. Even if they were persons however they still would not be able to form the mens rea to make the dwelling in the mother's womb without her consent a crime.

[Mavorpen]

No, it doesn't. It boils down to personhood and being a human being.

A human being means being sentiant. I think a foetus is self aware a few weeks before birth.

Really? That's all it means? Then I guess we should give human rights to everything from a rat to bonobos.

[Corporate Jesusland]

Look tragic deaths are something, murders are something totally different, abortion is the willed killing of a human being, something that is planned and agreed upon beforehand and in most nations paid for by either a government, a health plan of some sort or by regular means of currency exchange.

Its like saying we shouldn't drive cars because there is a chance of people loosing control or making a mistake and someone dying. Flying a plane or going on a boat is the same thing, there is a chance of death involved but nobody would suggest that a total accident would warrant homicide or manslaughter charges. Or at the very least that as people grow older the chance of accidents occurring increases therefore anyone over 60 shouldn't be able to drive or else face (at least) manslaughter charges when a death occurs.

But we're not talking about tiny chances here! We're talking about a majority of pregnancies: Most conceptions end in miscarriage. Not a few, not some, but most.

That doesn't make pregnancy like driving a car. That makes pregnancy like going out on a drunken joy ride at 100mph or more. The chances of the fetus dying aren't small; they're better than even.

So what right do we have to start pregnancies when the odds of the baby dying are better than half? How can that kind of reckless, willful endangerment of precious human life be justified?

[Mavorpen]

Why? One is committing a crime, one isn't. One is considered more sentient than a rat, one isn't. Why do you keep going around in circles ignoring everything we say?

I am not ignoring everything you say, but in order for there to be a crime you need an actus reus (guilty act) and a mens rea (guilty mind), the unborn foetus might very well be committing a guilty act, but certainly has no capacity to have the guilty mind. It is firstly it is unconsciousness and secondly is only just developing a mind with witch to make decisions. And unless you are found guilty in a court of law you are seen as innocent under the law. Considering that the unborn are legally hardly even regarded as persons under the current law it is impossible to say they are even so much as guilty of a crime. Even if they were persons however they still would not be able to form the mens rea to make the dwelling in the mother's womb without her consent a crime.

Bullshit alert.

No I am simply saying that an unborn foetus is not a fully fledged moral agent and is unconscious regardless. It can no more choose to inhabit the womb than a rock can choose to fall. As to a foetus being as important as a rock that is just hogwash.

So, you're admitting that a fetus is no more sentient and important than a rock. But, I'm sick of you ignoring definitions. Let's look at some from the Oxford dictionary, shall we?

guilty Pronunciation: /ˈgɪlti/
Definition of guilty
adjective (guiltier, guiltiest)
culpable of or responsible for a specified wrongdoing:
he was found guilty of manslaughter
Williams pleaded guilty to three separate offences
justly chargeable with a particular fault or error:
she was guilty of a serious error of judgement
conscious of, affected by, or revealing a feeling of guilt:
he felt guilty about the way he had treated her
a guilty conscience
causing a feeling of guilt:
a guilty secret

responsible Pronunciation: /rɪˈspɒnsɪb(ə)l/
Definition of responsible
adjective
1 [predic.] having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one’s job or role:
the cabinet minister responsible for Education
(responsible to) having to report to (a superior) and be answerable to them for one’s actions:
the Prime Minister and cabinet are responsible to Parliament
2being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it:
Gooch was responsible for 198 of his side’s 542 runs
morally accountable for one’s behaviour:
the progressive emergence of the child as a responsible being
3(of a job or position) involving important duties, independent decision-making, or control over others:
she had risen rapidly to a high and responsible position in the civil service
capable of being trusted:
a responsible adult

Being guilty has little to do with choice. You're wrong, yet again. But I'm sure you'll ignore this and in 5 pages you'll say, "THE FETUS CAN'T CHOOSE!"

[Zottistan]

A human being means being sentiant. I think a foetus is self aware a few weeks before birth.

Really? That's all it means? Then I guess we should give human rights to everything from a rat to bonobos.

We have no proof that rats and bonobos are sentient. We have proof that humans are sentiant.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Why? One is committing a crime, one isn't. One is considered more sentient than a rat, one isn't. Why do you keep going around in circles ignoring everything we say?

I am not ignoring everything you say, but in order for there to be a crime you need an actus reus (guilty act) and a mens rea (guilty mind), the unborn foetus might very well be committing a guilty act, but certainly has no capacity to have the guilty mind. It is firstly it is unconsciousness and secondly is only just developing a mind with witch to make decisions. And unless you are found guilty in a court of law you are seen as innocent under the law. Considering that the unborn are legally hardly even regarded as persons under the current law it is impossible to say they are even so much as guilty of a crime. Even if they were persons however they still would not be able to form the mens rea to make the dwelling in the mother's womb without her consent a crime.

You ignored this:

No i am trying to point out that there needs to be a balance between the mother and unborn child's rights.

And by removing the right from the mother to have an abortion, you're completely removing any rights of hers around the issue of choice, so that plainly isn't a balance.

[Mavorpen]

Really? That's all it means? Then I guess we should give human rights to everything from a rat to bonobos.

We have no proof that rats and bonobos are sentient. We have proof that humans are sentiant.

Um? We have proven that both of those are sentient. The word you are looking for is "sapient." But naturally it's biased towards humans.

[The Realm of God]

A human being means being sentiant. I think a foetus is self aware a few weeks before birth.

Really? That's all it means? Then I guess we should give human rights to everything from a rat to bonobos.

Rats and bonobis are sentiant.
Human beings are sapiant.

I got the two confused.

[Zottistan]

We have no proof that rats and bonobos are sentient. We have proof that humans are sentiant.

Um? We have proven that both of those are sentient. The word you are looking for is "sapient." But naturally it's biased towards humans.

Ugh, I keep getting those two words mixed up. Which one means "capable of making moral decisions"? That's the one I meant.

[Mavorpen]

Really? That's all it means? Then I guess we should give human rights to everything from a rat to bonobos.

Rats and bonobis are sentiant.
Human beings are sapiant.

I got the two confused.

Exactly. Which still doesn't mean a fetus deserves more rights than a rat.

[The Realm of God]

Rats and bonobis are sentiant.
Human beings are sapiant.

I got the two confused.

Exactly. Which still doesn't mean a fetus deserves more rights than a rat.

It doesn't intill it can demonstrate that it is self aware. Embryos are not self aware.

[Mavorpen]

Um? We have proven that both of those are sentient. The word you are looking for is "sapient." But naturally it's biased towards humans.

Ugh, I keep getting those two words mixed up. Which one means "capable of making moral decisions"? That's the one I meant.

Neither. Although despite this, bonobos are capable of making moral decisions. Rats, I'm not sure. So why give a fetus more rights than a bonobo?

[The Realm of God]

Ugh, I keep getting those two words mixed up. Which one means "capable of making moral decisions"? That's the one I meant.

Neither. Although despite this, bonobos are capable of making moral decisions. Rats, I'm not sure. So why give a fetus more rights than a bonobo?

And chimps can feel empathy. Which is why I sort of support the primate rights movement.

[Natair]

Can you find me the verse in the Bible where God says "Thou shalt not use contraception"?

"Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.What he did was wicked in the lord's sight."

As for masturbation, I already said that you are the same sex as yourself. To achieve orgasm at your own hands shows at least some level of auto eroticism, which is homosexual.

I've only read the lolcat version of the bible, so I JUST recognize that part.

[Mavorpen]

Neither. Although despite this, bonobos are capable of making moral decisions. Rats, I'm not sure. So why give a fetus more rights than a bonobo?

And chimps can feel empathy. Which is why I sort of support the primate rights movement.

I really see no reason to only stop at primates, but it's a start. Regardless, my entire point was that it's silly to give something such as a fetus more rights than something that is drastically more sentient.

[Dyakovo]

Fixed.

Sperm are living genetic code that becomes us. Foetuses when left alone quickly die and do not produce anything.

You leave a sperm inside a uterus and no human egg shows up guess what happens? Nothing the sperm dies. Leave a foetus in the uterus to develop normally and in 9 months (give or take) you will need to name it amd it might survive, or it might not.

Fixed for accuracy

[Parchelon]

1. But self defence is viable only if the attacker is a criminal or a belligerent in a conflict, if that person is actually attacking you and if there is no other option but to kill. In the case of abortion none of these are true: the 'attacker' is not a moral agent and is incapable of the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary to commit a crime, they aren't deliberately attacking the mother but are rather simply trying to exist in the only way possible for them, and there are options other than killing to resolve the 'violation' of the mother's rights.

You seem to think that self-defense is justice. It ain't.

2. How the heck is trying to safeguard both human's rights in this case totalitarianism?

You seem to have fallen into a common trap: Believing that life itself is a right. It is not. That is an illusion and is merely a result of bodily possession.

2. Yes but if a rock falls on someone you hardly would declare it anything other than innocent in the injury since it cannot chose to fall. Thus the unborn are just as innocent of the violation of their mother's rights because they simply cannot chose to do anything in the situation.

SELF DEFENSE IS NOT JUSTICE. GET THAT ITG BULLSHIT OUT OF YOUR HEAD.

1. self defence is a right in certain circumstances.
2. We have the right not to be murdered or otherwise killed unjustly. Though this response is confusing to me to say the least.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
(I am unwilling to copy and paste it here due to that unmentionables legal row with this game) articles number 2 and 3 are what I would have cited, particularly about no discrimination for reasons of birth and the right to life. Many nations including the USA, Canada and the UK have adopted this resolution

3. ...

[Dyakovo]

What massive difference? They're both bundles of DNA, inside a uterus, with the potential to develop into a new human life.

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

Bullshit.