American's More Pro-Life

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
pat wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Why do you keep elevating an unborn baby to human like status. Self awareness is what supposedly what separates us from animals (in non religious terms). Unborn babies are not self aware.
I oppose killing babies once they are born (and still not self aware) because there is no advantage to that, adoption is clearly better. I do think there are advantages for a woman who doesn’t want to give birth to have an abortion.
Abortions will still happen even if you ban it. It will just lead to the deaths of more women.

And to the people on this board who think that they are in the majority, then actually look at the statistics. There are more people who think abortion should be either legal in all cases or in most cases than people who think abortion should be illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases (in America).

Uh, how can you tell what is self aware and what is not? Is self awareness the definition of personhood?

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.

A person knocked out isn’t self aware, I would even go as far as saying a sleeping person isn’t self aware, much less say a person in a comma. This same argument could justify eugenics (not that they are vastly different from modern day abortion).[/quote]

Eugenics is what you do when you fall for the hottie, but turn down the fat ugly one.

So again, you people get to call the shots when you’re actually going through the pregnancy. As long as you’re not, it’s none of your business!

People like you were burning witches a few centuries back.

142

[quote]pat wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
FUCK I don’t want to get into this, cartoon fox. If the woman does not have the option of aborting, the abomination in her womb will evolve into a child. A child that can possibly be the product of rape. A burden to all parties involved. The anguish the child will go through could have been avoided if the mother would have had the opportunity to abort. “Yeah, but…” Enough, I’m out. These are my views. drops mic on the floor and walks away

So your saying that you were an abomination and a burden and you’d have rather been aborted?[/quote]

What the fuck? No, I was a planned project. I’m talking about random teenage girls raped by someone being forced to bring up a child that was and probably is not wanted. I’m out of this argument.

143

[quote]lixy wrote:

So again, you people get to call the shots when you’re actually going through the pregnancy. As long as you’re not, it’s none of your business!

[/quote]

That’s fucking retarded lixy, and you know it. God I hate it when you do this. Sometimes you make reasonable arguments, albeit mostly in disagreement, and then there’s the majority of the time when you just take a big fat intellectual dump in a thread.

I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

144

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.[/quote]

Ok, so just so I’m clear on this: self-awareness is necessary for personhood, but it is not enough by itself. By your definition kids can’t pass until 18 months. So you’re saying you are completely ok with infanticide of 1 year olds?

Or even better, given that babies under 18 months old are not self-aware, you are completely ok with killing them, chopping them up, and throwing them in a delightful chili for your dinner? Because that’s what you’re saying.

That’s fucking twisted.

145

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.

Ok, so just so I’m clear on this: self-awareness is necessary for personhood, but it is not enough by itself. By your definition kids can’t pass until 18 months. So you’re saying you are completely ok with infanticide of 1 year olds?

Or even better, given that babies under 18 months old are not self-aware, you are completely ok with killing them, chopping them up, and throwing them in a delightful chili for your dinner? Because that’s what you’re saying.

That’s fucking twisted.[/quote]

Except I already said before than once the child is born I believe it should be put up for adoption if it isn’t wanted. Not everything people believe follows one line of logic. There are always exceptions.

146

A couple thoughts after a long day. Until we stop using our soldiers to kill people, then abortion shall be legal. Its somewhat the same thing, people killing people. I think that made sense. Anyway, my girlfriend was raped by her crazy, stupid fuck felon ex-boyfriend who she hasn’t had contact with since. She got pregnant and now has the most adorable 2 1/2 year old daughter that I am considering adopting as my own. Now she could have gotten her aborted and no one would have thought she was a terrible person.

However, something tells me she’s VERY glad she didn’t. I also believe that plenty of people have babies that shouldn’t. I speculate that a large chunk of tax dollars goes toward feeding these people who had children but don’t have the means to support them.

147

Who’s winning?

148

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.[/quote]

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

149

[quote]lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.[/quote]

Well at least you’re consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent. And you’d be vilified by the politicos just like the pro-life movement is because you want to overturn the “golden” decision.

I still find it surprising that you would want to deprive millions of women of the chance to get their reproductive rights simply because you don’t feel that guys should hold an opinion. That’s kind of scary. When it comes to ethics, any rational individual is completely capable of holding a good argument.

And as far as my stance, I have constrained myself to simply pointing out a few things that I feel bring the level of debate lower than it could be. I have no interest in entering the debate on either side, just pointing out some things I would like the pro-choice crowd to refrain from doing because they are easily countered.

150

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.

Ok, so just so I’m clear on this: self-awareness is necessary for personhood, but it is not enough by itself. By your definition kids can’t pass until 18 months. So you’re saying you are completely ok with infanticide of 1 year olds?

Or even better, given that babies under 18 months old are not self-aware, you are completely ok with killing them, chopping them up, and throwing them in a delightful chili for your dinner? Because that’s what you’re saying.

That’s fucking twisted.

Except I already said before than once the child is born I believe it should be put up for adoption if it isn’t wanted. Not everything people believe follows one line of logic. There are always exceptions.[/quote]

No, don’t backpedal. I’m not talking about unborn children. I don’t care about them. I am talking about what you said in favor of infanticide, and an argument for the acceptability of cannibalistic infanticide. Yes or no? It was a blatant statement. You said [quote]“I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal”[/quote]

You directly and explicitly equated the eating of game meat to the eating of children under 18 months–“same logic”. You just said that if an organism that is NOT self-aware can be killed with “minimal suffering”, then it is acceptable to do that. Then you followed it up with the part about the mirror test and then finally in your last post about equating them to game animals.

So, are you ok with infanticide up to about 18 months, as you should be considering your logic, or are you not?

151

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.

Ok, so just so I’m clear on this: self-awareness is necessary for personhood, but it is not enough by itself. By your definition kids can’t pass until 18 months. So you’re saying you are completely ok with infanticide of 1 year olds?

Or even better, given that babies under 18 months old are not self-aware, you are completely ok with killing them, chopping them up, and throwing them in a delightful chili for your dinner? Because that’s what you’re saying.

That’s fucking twisted.

Except I already said before than once the child is born I believe it should be put up for adoption if it isn’t wanted. Not everything people believe follows one line of logic. There are always exceptions.

No, don’t backpedal. I’m not talking about unborn children. I don’t care about them. I am talking about what you said in favor of infanticide, and an argument for the acceptability of cannibalistic infanticide. Yes or no? It was a blatant statement. You said “I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal”

You directly and explicitly equated the eating of game meat to the eating of children under 18 months–“same logic”. You just said that if an organism that is NOT self-aware can be killed with “minimal suffering”, then it is acceptable to do that. Then you followed it up with the part about the mirror test and then finally in your last post about equating them to game animals.

So, are you ok with infanticide up to about 18 months, as you should be considering your logic, or are you not?[/quote]

The logic isn’t for eating babies, the logic is the choice to kill. Before they are born I say we use the same logic for killing them. After they are born it is a different issue because at that point I believe they are not part of their mother.

So to sum up to make sure there is no misinterpretation, when a baby is in the womb it is ok to abort, it’s not self conscious, it is part of the mother. After being born it isn’t self conscious, but it’s not part of the mother, and therefore there is no need to kill the baby. It could just as easily be put up for adoption.
Abortion has advantages, killing a baby after it is born doesn’t.

152

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.

Ok, so just so I’m clear on this: self-awareness is necessary for personhood, but it is not enough by itself. By your definition kids can’t pass until 18 months. So you’re saying you are completely ok with infanticide of 1 year olds?

Or even better, given that babies under 18 months old are not self-aware, you are completely ok with killing them, chopping them up, and throwing them in a delightful chili for your dinner? Because that’s what you’re saying.

That’s fucking twisted.

Except I already said before than once the child is born I believe it should be put up for adoption if it isn’t wanted. Not everything people believe follows one line of logic. There are always exceptions.

No, don’t backpedal. I’m not talking about unborn children. I don’t care about them. I am talking about what you said in favor of infanticide, and an argument for the acceptability of cannibalistic infanticide. Yes or no? It was a blatant statement. You said “I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal”

You directly and explicitly equated the eating of game meat to the eating of children under 18 months–“same logic”. You just said that if an organism that is NOT self-aware can be killed with “minimal suffering”, then it is acceptable to do that. Then you followed it up with the part about the mirror test and then finally in your last post about equating them to game animals.

So, are you ok with infanticide up to about 18 months, as you should be considering your logic, or are you not?

The logic isn’t for eating babies, the logic is the choice to kill. Before they are born I say we use the same logic for killing them. After they are born it is a different issue because at that point I believe they are not part of their mother.

So to sum up to make sure there is no misinterpretation, when a baby is in the womb it is ok to abort, it’s not self conscious, it is part of the mother. After being born it isn’t self conscious, but it’s not part of the mother, and therefore there is no need to kill the baby. It could just as easily be put up for adoption.
Abortion has advantages, killing a baby after it is born doesn’t.[/quote]

Ok. My mistake. So it is the utilitarian advantages that abortion gives then. The way you phrased that post I just about choked on my supper. I didn’t think anybody (save a couple wackos I know of in academia) could actually be spouting that line, but I wasn’t about to let you back off of the implication it would have entailed.

153

[quote]lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.[/quote]

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

154

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
eigieinhamr wrote:

There are tests for self awareness. The most used of which is the mirror test. Babies can’t pass this until they are 18 months.
Self awareness is not the definition of personhood, some animals are self aware. But I think it’s essential for personhood. What I am saying is if you are not self aware, then no, you don’t get the same rights as a person that is. I’m not talking about cruelty to something that isn’t self aware. I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal.

Ok, so just so I’m clear on this: self-awareness is necessary for personhood, but it is not enough by itself. By your definition kids can’t pass until 18 months. So you’re saying you are completely ok with infanticide of 1 year olds?

Or even better, given that babies under 18 months old are not self-aware, you are completely ok with killing them, chopping them up, and throwing them in a delightful chili for your dinner? Because that’s what you’re saying.

That’s fucking twisted.

Except I already said before than once the child is born I believe it should be put up for adoption if it isn’t wanted. Not everything people believe follows one line of logic. There are always exceptions.

No, don’t backpedal. I’m not talking about unborn children. I don’t care about them. I am talking about what you said in favor of infanticide, and an argument for the acceptability of cannibalistic infanticide. Yes or no? It was a blatant statement. You said “I’m talking about the same logic we use to eat meat in a situation where we cause minimal suffering to an animal”

You directly and explicitly equated the eating of game meat to the eating of children under 18 months–“same logic”. You just said that if an organism that is NOT self-aware can be killed with “minimal suffering”, then it is acceptable to do that. Then you followed it up with the part about the mirror test and then finally in your last post about equating them to game animals.

So, are you ok with infanticide up to about 18 months, as you should be considering your logic, or are you not?

The logic isn’t for eating babies, the logic is the choice to kill. Before they are born I say we use the same logic for killing them. After they are born it is a different issue because at that point I believe they are not part of their mother.

So to sum up to make sure there is no misinterpretation, when a baby is in the womb it is ok to abort, it’s not self conscious, it is part of the mother. After being born it isn’t self conscious, but it’s not part of the mother, and therefore there is no need to kill the baby. It could just as easily be put up for adoption.
Abortion has advantages, killing a baby after it is born doesn’t.[/quote]

It’s not part of the mother…Her lungs are part of her, her hands are part of her a baby is a completely unique and autonomous being attached umbilical cord.

155

[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant. [/quote]

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

156

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.[/quote]

Please note that that kind of reasoning is quite common when it comes to foreign aid, medicinal supplies and any other kind of welfare.

157

I can’t believe no one responded to my argument that women don’t have any say in this matter. What is wrong with all of you, no agreements or disagreements at all? Is no one in the mood to play anymore?

V

158

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.[/quote]

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

159

[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.[/quote]

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.

160

[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’ve already been through this. If your above statement was true, then the 9 old guys in robes had no authority whatsoever to legalize abortions with Roe v. Wade because they were men. Tell me you don’t really believe that.

Actually, I do. What goes on inside a woman, is none of your business (or that of "the 9 old guys in robes).

They have been treated like breeding machines for far too long. And this anti-abortion stance of yours is just the continuation of that age-old tradition which denies them their rights.

This is a Red Herring. The only question that matters is whether or not the person in utero is a human being. If the thing you are killing is a human being, any other reasoning is completely irrelevant.

An abortion is not “killing”. It’s more akin to not letting the fetus fully devellop. And once it happens in your uterus and on your dime (nutrients, hormones, etc.) you get a say.

Following your logic, farmers should be forced to feed the starving, or they’re killing them.

And that fetus is a person and by killing it, you kill everything it was and everything it could have been. That fetus can not be repeated, you can’t just decide later to put it back. It is unique and if you kill it you never replace it. You may have another child, but it will never be that child.

So?

There are little children right now that are starving.

Off you go and save each and every unique one of them.[/quote]

[/thread]