Advertisement
by Strahcoin » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:00 am
by Vassenor » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:05 am
Strahcoin wrote:I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.
We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.
Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being. (Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.
by The New California Republic » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:08 am
Strahcoin wrote:I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.
Strahcoin wrote:We were all fetuses once.
Strahcoin wrote:We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies.
Strahcoin wrote:However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.
Strahcoin wrote:Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being.
Strahcoin wrote:(Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.)
Strahcoin wrote:We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.
by The Free Joy State » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:14 am
Strahcoin wrote:I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.
We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.
Strahcoin wrote:One more thing: we were all fetuses once. That means we have, according to you, "invaded our mothers' bodies".
Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being.
(Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.
by Strahcoin » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:16 am
Estanglia wrote:Strahcoin wrote:It seems that my biggest challenge here is to show the immorality of abortion to those who dehumanize the fetus.
sigh
You'd think that, with the amount of times we have repeated it, that you'd realise that their humanity was never in dispute.Given: Killing a newborn baby is immoral. (If you don't agree with this, then your "morals" are... questionable at best, immoral at worst.)
1. Besides the location, there is little to no difference between a fetus about to come out and a baby already born.
Except, you know, the violation of rights that is the crux of the pro-life position that only ends with birth.
But yeah, only location.
It'd be like saying the difference between me stabbing you and me not stabbing you is location. It's so simplified that it misses every important bit.Strahcoin wrote:Yes; there are too many posts for me to respond.
1. Well, you and others have said that the fetus is not a human being and therefore has no right to life...
Human being and human surprisingly aren't synonyms. What are is human being and person.3. One is a person, the other is too. Your flat-out refusal to acknowledge this is causing the mistake on your part. Besides, what I meant was no measurable differences - more than just what the dictionary says.
1) They're not.
2) We would be much more open to accepting it if you could come up with an argument for why it is a person without ignoring key sections of the definition (like treating human and person as synonyms, defining person as human + alive then complaining that the definition has been changed, etc.).5. I used morals, not emotions. But, if you want a selfish argument against abortion, fine. I'll try my best.
Humans have generally improved society as a whole. The fetus has potential to do this. With (or even, albeit less likely, without) the right nurture, this fetus will be born, grow, and help improve society (assuming the society is under capitalism). New human lives = new potential = greater productivity and ideas = innovation = better society.
Or there's the chance that they could end up fucking up the society, a problem with potential-based arguments.
by The New California Republic » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:24 am
Strahcoin wrote:Unfortunately, it was.
Strahcoin wrote:Pregnancy is part of biology. Besides, we were all fetuses once, so allowing abortion to kill/destroy other fetuses without giving them a chance would be hypocritical.
Strahcoin wrote:Something that is human is either a "person" or a "part". The fetus is not a part. It is an individual human being.
Strahcoin wrote:Whether or not a fetus will grow to be bad is unknowable when the fetus is still in the body. It's imperative that we give them a chance.
by Kernen » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:43 am
Strahcoin wrote:5. More help than harm. Few people (at least in the U.S.) are unemployed, meaning that most people (after a certain age) are producing for society. While there is the chance that they will cause notable harm, that chance is very low. Whether or not a fetus will grow to be bad is unknowable when the fetus is still in the body. It's imperative that we give them a chance.
by Estanglia » Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:50 am
Strahcoin wrote:I should probably mention that pregnancy is part of biology and therefore unavoidable in the creation of new human lives.
We were all fetuses once. We have, according to the "pro-choice", all "invaded" our mothers' bodies. However, our mother has no right to kill us. Why? Because this is how reproduction works.
Pregnancy is a small price to pay to create the most valuable entity in existence: a new human being. (Even if you don't consider a fetus a human being, it will be once it's brought out of the womb and into the world.) We should not downplay the wonderful, powerful ability to create more people by allowing abortion to kill them before they have a chance to prove themselves to the world.
Strahcoin wrote:Estanglia wrote:
sigh
You'd think that, with the amount of times we have repeated it, that you'd realise that their humanity was never in dispute.
Except, you know, the violation of rights that is the crux of the pro-life position that only ends with birth.
But yeah, only location.
It'd be like saying the difference between me stabbing you and me not stabbing you is location. It's so simplified that it misses every important bit.
Human being and human surprisingly aren't synonyms. What are is human being and person.
1) They're not.
2) We would be much more open to accepting it if you could come up with an argument for why it is a person without ignoring key sections of the definition (like treating human and person as synonyms, defining person as human + alive then complaining that the definition has been changed, etc.).
Or there's the chance that they could end up fucking up the society, a problem with potential-based arguments.
1. Unfortunately, it was.
2. Pregnancy is part of biology. Besides, we were all fetuses once, so allowing abortion to kill/destroy other fetuses without giving them a chance would be hypocritical.
3. Something that is human is either a "person" or a "part". The fetus is not a part. It is an individual human being.
4. "The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells, resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being." - https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/arti ... otes2.html
Oh, here's a dictionary entry: A human being is "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens." - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being?s=ts
5. More help than harm. Few people (at least in the U.S.) are unemployed, meaning that most people (after a certain age) are producing for society. While there is the chance that they will cause notable harm, that chance is very low. Whether or not a fetus will grow to be bad is unknowable when the fetus is still in the body. It's imperative that we give them a chance.
Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"
by Kernen » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:04 am
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:25 am
Kernen wrote:I've already established why Strahcoin's appeals to morality are appeals to emotion, and got no response, so marking them as appeals to emotion seems futile.
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:39 am
Godular wrote:New haven america wrote:Except for most pro-lifers, who believe that they're people once conception happens.
Even if they are people, they still have no right to use another person's body without that person's consent. Hypothetical conjoined twins are a wholly different issue regarding body-ownership. The fetus does not own the woman's body, and as long as that fetus is within her body its future is dependent solely upon whether she wishes it to remain. This is as it should be.
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Mon Jul 08, 2019 9:47 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Godular wrote:
Even if they are people, they still have no right to use another person's body without that person's consent. Hypothetical conjoined twins are a wholly different issue regarding body-ownership. The fetus does not own the woman's body, and as long as that fetus is within her body its future is dependent solely upon whether she wishes it to remain. This is as it should be.
The problem with this argument is that we compel behavior all the time from people.
Moreover, does bodily sovereignty extend to control over natural processes?
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:23 am
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:The problem with this argument is that we compel behavior all the time from people.
Certain extant double standards do not constitute a basis to make more.Moreover, does bodily sovereignty extend to control over natural processes?
Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.
by Katganistan » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:23 am
Kernen wrote:If society's interests override your right to bodily sovereignty, we'd have forced organ donations and likely have banned abortions.
by Jebslund » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:33 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:New haven america wrote:1. He doesn't want to help them, he wants both of them to suffer because he thinks that a painless death is worse than a lifetime of agony.
2. Yeah, people have been saying that for 70 years, yet we still have a lot of the same problems we had back then. Hmm...
Tell you what, if you think that lifetime of suffering is worse than dying, why don't you go and kill disabled people?
United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.
Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.
by Kernen » Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:37 am
by Katganistan » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:05 am
Crislandian wrote:Yo creo que el derecho de una persona a hacer lo que desee con su cuerpo está bien.Cualquiera debe poder tomar,fumar,usar drogas,ponerse tatuajes,operarse, etc.Las mujeres son y deben seguir siendo libres de hacer lo que quieran con sus cuerpos y el Estado o la Iglesia no se lo pueden prohibir.Pero en el caso del aborto es distinto porque desde el momento de la concepción se forma un ser humano distinto a la madre que y como la Declaración Universal de los derechos humanos defiende los derecho de cualquier ser humano este merece protecciónpor parte del Estado.
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:16 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Certain extant double standards do not constitute a basis to make more.
Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.
Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.
by Necroghastia » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:03 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
Certain extant double standards do not constitute a basis to make more.
Yes. After all, sex is a natural process. If THAT happens without one party’s consent, we consider it to be one of the most fundamental violations possible.
Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:06 pm
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.
Don’t fucking split hairs over that kinda shit. All I hear is you trying to justify ‘The woman’s wishes don’t matter, Let the fetus finish!’ which to me is every bit as bad as ‘The woman’s wishes don’t matter, let the rapist finish!’.
I don’t fucking care if it is a ‘natural process’ or not, if the woman does not consent to the fetus’ presence then an aversive situation exists which the woman should have every right to rectify with immediacy and effect.
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:08 pm
Necroghastia wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:Sex is an action, not a natural process. The growth of the fetus is a natural process however, much like aging.
A lot of peoples' senses get duller as they get older. Should we ban glasses and hearing aids? They interfere with a natural process.
Cancer growth is also a natural process, should we ban treatment for that?
by Necroghastia » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:09 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Necroghastia wrote:A lot of peoples' senses get duller as they get older. Should we ban glasses and hearing aids? They interfere with a natural process.
Cancer growth is also a natural process, should we ban treatment for that?
Treating the symptoms of natural processes (such as removing a tumor or palliative care for aging) is fine, but trying to stop nature (such as trying to reverse aging) is wrong.
by United Muscovite Nations » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:12 pm
by The New California Republic » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:16 pm
by Necroghastia » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:18 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Likhinia, ML Library, Tungstan
Advertisement