[quote]storey420 wrote:
Slavery isn’t exactly something a person consents to willingly like every other example, nice try.[/quote]
Neither is being aborted.
[/quote]
Fetus isn’t a cognizant person…next[/quote]
Cognizance isn’t the determinant for who lives and who dies in this society…just in case you were wondering. The fact that you probably weren’t suggests you’re not knowledgeable enough to be debating this subject. If you were you would be cognizant of that fact.
Next.
[/quote]
A consenting, cognizant adult agrees to an abortion. They do not agree to slavery. Yeah you’re right this debate is way over my head it’s so complicated.
Agreed. Now if we can just abolish those slavery laws.[/quote]
Besides being outlawed with the 13th amendment, slavery is the antithesis of libertarianism — forced servitude of a person, due to the laws of a state.
Indeed, I am not sure what is more anti-libertarian than slavery.[/quote]
The refusal to recognize the very right to life.[/quote]
I understand your point here, I do. But until the scientific community can come to a conclusion on the issue, then opinions are still going to be split over the issue.[/quote]
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Slavery isn’t exactly something a person consents to willingly like every other example, nice try.[/quote]
Neither is being aborted.
[/quote]
Fetus isn’t a cognizant person…next[/quote]
Cognizance isn’t the determinant for who lives and who dies in this society…just in case you were wondering. The fact that you probably weren’t suggests you’re not knowledgeable enough to be debating this subject. If you were you would be cognizant of that fact.
Next.
[/quote]
A consenting, cognizant adult agrees to an abortion. They do not agree to slavery. Yeah you’re right this debate is way over my head it’s so complicated.[/quote]
No, one adult agrees to an abortion. The other human life is killed before allowing it the same courtesy.
Sorry folks, the embryo is already the same individual organism throughout it’s entire life cycle.
Embryo= organism. Organism= life. Human embryo= human life. In fact, science long ago decided the embryo is the same organism throughout it’s entire life cycle as an individual. Embryo Sloth is/was the same individual organism as adult Sloth. Just as infant Sloth is/was the same individual organism as adult Sloth.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW and FWIW and FYI and so forth, I went ahead and voted (absentee) for Gary today.
I am strongly pro-life and Gary falls a bit short in that category but Mitt has vacillated on it as well as gun control (among other things). Romney’s apparent lack of understanding of the limits placed by the Constitution on the federal government concern me too.[/quote]
Romney needs those 3 electoral votes.
You better vote 2 or 3 more times. Or do you have to be a Democrat to do that?
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Slavery isn’t exactly something a person consents to willingly like every other example, nice try.[/quote]
Neither is being aborted.
[/quote]
Fetus isn’t a cognizant person…next[/quote]
Cognizance isn’t the determinant for who lives and who dies in this society…just in case you were wondering. The fact that you probably weren’t suggests you’re not knowledgeable enough to be debating this subject. If you were you would be cognizant of that fact.
Next.
[/quote]
A consenting, cognizant adult agrees to an abortion. They do not agree to slavery. Yeah you’re right this debate is way over my head it’s so complicated.[/quote]
Countering circular logic with no logic? I guess I will consider that a tie then.
Agreed. Now if we can just abolish those slavery laws.[/quote]
Besides being outlawed with the 13th amendment, slavery is the antithesis of libertarianism — forced servitude of a person, due to the laws of a state.
Indeed, I am not sure what is more anti-libertarian than slavery.[/quote]
The refusal to recognize the very right to life.[/quote]
I understand your point here, I do. But until the scientific community can come to a conclusion on the issue, then opinions are still going to be split over the issue.[/quote]
It did. When it defined the organism as life.
[/quote]
You know as well as I that the scientific community is split over the issue of abortion.
But anyhow, like I said, I wasn’t trying to have a discussion about abortion, so I’m out.
Agreed. Now if we can just abolish those slavery laws.[/quote]
Besides being outlawed with the 13th amendment, slavery is the antithesis of libertarianism — forced servitude of a person, due to the laws of a state.
Indeed, I am not sure what is more anti-libertarian than slavery.[/quote]
The refusal to recognize the very right to life.[/quote]
I understand your point here, I do. But until the scientific community can come to a conclusion on the issue, then opinions are still going to be split over the issue.[/quote]
It did. When it defined the organism as life.
[/quote]
You know as well as I that the scientific community is split over the issue of abortion.
But anyhow, like I said, I wasn’t trying to have a discussion about abortion, so I’m out.
[/quote]
The scientific community isn’t split over the issue of abortion. It has nothing to say at all about abortion. It can, and does, say that the human embryo is already an individual human organism, and therefore, already an individual human life, traveling it’s own individual life cycle. Unless you’re suggesting science has yet to figure out that embryo Chris87 wasn’t/isn’t the same organism who is adult Chris87. No, I don’t think you believe science hasn’t already answered this. Same organism. Therefore, same life. Now, it can determine how to preserve or kill that life through ‘medical’ science. But it has nothing to say about the right or wrong of abortion. Or, murder. Or, rape. Or, slavery. Science just produces the nuclear bomb, it has jack to say about the right or wrongness of it’s use.
Agreed. Now if we can just abolish those slavery laws.[/quote]
Besides being outlawed with the 13th amendment, slavery is the antithesis of libertarianism — forced servitude of a person, due to the laws of a state.
Indeed, I am not sure what is more anti-libertarian than slavery.[/quote]
The refusal to recognize the very right to life.[/quote]
I understand your point here, I do. But until the scientific community can come to a conclusion on the issue, then opinions are still going to be split over the issue.[/quote]
It did. When it defined the organism as life.
[/quote]
You know as well as I that the scientific community is split over the issue of abortion.
But anyhow, like I said, I wasn’t trying to have a discussion about abortion, so I’m out.
[/quote]
The scientific community isn’t split over the issue of abortion. It has nothing to say at all about abortion. It can, and does, say that the human embryo is already an individual human organism, and therefore, already an individual human life, traveling it’s own individual life cycle. Unless you’re suggesting science has yet to figure out that embryo Chris87 wasn’t/isn’t the same organism who is adult Chris87. No, I don’t think you believe science hasn’t already answered this. Same organism. Therefore, same life. Now, it can determine how to preserve or kill that life through ‘medical’ science. But it has nothing to say about the right or wrong of abortion. Or, murder. Or, rape. Or, slavery. Science just produces the nuclear bomb, it has jack to say about the right or wrongness of it’s use.
[/quote]
I am fully aware that scientific discovery is never inherently “good” or “bad”. I’m not saying that the scientific community is split over abortion being “good” or “bad”. But the scientific community IS split over when life begins, and therefore when/if abortion should be tolerated.
Here’s an example of a few of the different theories:
Agreed. Now if we can just abolish those slavery laws.[/quote]
Besides being outlawed with the 13th amendment, slavery is the antithesis of libertarianism — forced servitude of a person, due to the laws of a state.
Indeed, I am not sure what is more anti-libertarian than slavery.[/quote]
The refusal to recognize the very right to life.[/quote]
I understand your point here, I do. But until the scientific community can come to a conclusion on the issue, then opinions are still going to be split over the issue.[/quote]
It did. When it defined the organism as life.
[/quote]
You know as well as I that the scientific community is split over the issue of abortion.
But anyhow, like I said, I wasn’t trying to have a discussion about abortion, so I’m out.
[/quote]
The scientific community isn’t split over the issue of abortion. It has nothing to say at all about abortion. It can, and does, say that the human embryo is already an individual human organism, and therefore, already an individual human life, traveling it’s own individual life cycle. Unless you’re suggesting science has yet to figure out that embryo Chris87 wasn’t/isn’t the same organism who is adult Chris87. No, I don’t think you believe science hasn’t already answered this. Same organism. Therefore, same life. Now, it can determine how to preserve or kill that life through ‘medical’ science. But it has nothing to say about the right or wrong of abortion. Or, murder. Or, rape. Or, slavery. Science just produces the nuclear bomb, it has jack to say about the right or wrongness of it’s use.
[/quote]
I am fully aware that scientific discovery is never inherently “good” or “bad”. I’m not saying that the scientific community is split over abortion being “good” or “bad”. But the scientific community IS split over when life begins, and therefore when/if abortion should be tolerated.
Here’s an example of a few of the different theories:
You should at least clarify you mean the right to life and not just life in general. Plants are considered life too but can be terminated with no moral issues.
Agreed. Now if we can just abolish those slavery laws.[/quote]
Besides being outlawed with the 13th amendment, slavery is the antithesis of libertarianism — forced servitude of a person, due to the laws of a state.
Indeed, I am not sure what is more anti-libertarian than slavery.[/quote]
The refusal to recognize the very right to life.[/quote]
I understand your point here, I do. But until the scientific community can come to a conclusion on the issue, then opinions are still going to be split over the issue.[/quote]
It did. When it defined the organism as life.
[/quote]
You know as well as I that the scientific community is split over the issue of abortion.
But anyhow, like I said, I wasn’t trying to have a discussion about abortion, so I’m out.
[/quote]
The scientific community isn’t split over the issue of abortion. It has nothing to say at all about abortion. It can, and does, say that the human embryo is already an individual human organism, and therefore, already an individual human life, traveling it’s own individual life cycle. Unless you’re suggesting science has yet to figure out that embryo Chris87 wasn’t/isn’t the same organism who is adult Chris87. No, I don’t think you believe science hasn’t already answered this. Same organism. Therefore, same life. Now, it can determine how to preserve or kill that life through ‘medical’ science. But it has nothing to say about the right or wrong of abortion. Or, murder. Or, rape. Or, slavery. Science just produces the nuclear bomb, it has jack to say about the right or wrongness of it’s use.
[/quote]
I am fully aware that scientific discovery is never inherently “good” or “bad”. I’m not saying that the scientific community is split over abortion being “good” or “bad”. But the scientific community IS split over when life begins, and therefore when/if abortion should be tolerated.
Here’s an example of a few of the different theories:
Yep. Organisms are alive (life). Of course we’re talking about the human organism and not gametes.
Ok.
Even accepting this view, that life hasn’t begun, the abortion window is 2 weeks…Far closer to my position than the pro-choicers.
And this is junk. The organism exists despite the stage of it’s neurological development. We aren’t talking about neurological DEATH here, either. The comparison is ridiculous. The embryo has the requirements, outside of a medical condition or abortion, to develop this faculty along with others.
And this is junk. An organism is life. The embryo is already an organism.
This is not part of the requirements/definition of an organism. Never has been.
Same as above.
Where are the citations? For instance, the ‘integrated physiological view.’ What scientific text or journal defines this as a necessary requirement of life? I would be flat out shocked if anybody here, who has taken a recent bio 101 class, has ever seen such a thing listed as one of the defining characteristics of an organism (life). That sounds like a philosophical view, not a scientific view.
Who is this person who compiled these ‘scientific views?’ Some of these ‘views’ don’t even seem to attempt to use a scientific definition of an organism/life. Instead, they seem to be philosophical views.
Metabolic and genetic seem to be the only ones that even adheres to definitions/requirements of the scientific ‘organism (life).’
I didn’t spend a lot of time finding that article. I also didn’t post it to argue about each of the different views. I don’t care what your views on abortion are. I’m also not telling you mine. I’m not here to convince you or agree with you. I only said that the scientific community is split on the issue, which is true.
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
I didn’t spend a lot of time finding that article. I also didn’t post it to argue about each of the different views. I don’t care what your views on abortion are. I’m also not telling you mine. I’m not here to convince you or agree with you. I only said that the scientific community is split on the issue, which is true.[/quote]
In other words, you just got your ass handed to you in an argument, but, rather than admit it, you will adhere to your muleheaded misconceptions, accuracy and truth be damned.
Who gives a shit if “the scientific community is split on the issues?” Determining if an organism is an individual human life or not is not even something you need scientific credentials to determine.
Honestly, the reverence heaped upon scientists these days for every single facet of just about anything is downright creepy.
Pro-choicers aren’t really pushing the “where life begins” argument nearly as much anymore.
From what I’ve seen, the focus has shifted to pushing the bodily rights argument.
Basically, even if the fetus is a person it’s irrelevant- the fetus has no right to use the woman’s body and the woman deserves full control of her body.
I find this a weird rationalization for killing someone, or at the very least letting someone die.
Basically, even if the fetus is a person it’s irrelevant- the fetus has no right to use the woman’s body and the woman deserves full control of her body.
[/quote]
The fetus has every right to use the woman’s body because its state of dependency is entirely the result of choices made by the woman. If someone places their life in your unwilling hands under such conditions that would require considerable sacrifice–sacrifice to the point that the future course of your life will certainly be permanently changed–on your part in order for that life to be spared, and you refuse to make that sacrifice, you may be selfish but you are not committing murder. But if you yourself create the circumstances by which the continuation of a life is contingent upon your willingness to sustain it–either intentionally or out of negligence or through willing engagement in an activity foreknown to carry these particular risks–and then refuse to do so, then yes, you are responsible for a human being’s death.
Regarding rights over the body, the woman HAS exercised full control of her body and she has decided to use it in such a way that has resulted in pregnancy.
Note: I know you’re just stating what their case is and don’t necessarily believe in this argument. Also, note that my arguments do not apply in cases of rape, which I believe demand the freedom of choice.