[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
On a related note, please tell me which event deems a person into existence? Another way of saying, what event suddenly gives a person rights?[/quote]
You are free to debate this with others–it does not interest me. But I do know the extent of the mother’s rights, which you do not.
[/quote]
By defining her as a mother you are accepting that the embryo/fetus is human. It has rights too.
Umm…let me list some things off the top of my head:
-we came from animals
-animals are driven by their instinctual urges, and can do little to control their hunger, thirst, libido. If these things are placed in jeopardy, they will frequently become aggressive in an attempt to secure access to these things. If we have learned nothing from history, it is that, despite a veneer of civilization when we are well-fed, clothed, and sheltered, humans quickly and completely shed any pretense of morality when these basic material resources are threatened. Just like an animal.
-animals frequently engage in complicated, sometimes bizarre mating rituals; approximately 60% of the Internet (and approximately 90% of Facebook) is dedicated to mating rituals are related subjects in one way or another.
-science says we are:
“Humans, known taxonomically as Homo sapiens[3][4] (Latin for “wise man” or “knowing man”), are the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family.”
Note: primates; great ape family.
-we share 98-99% of our DNA with chimpanzees.
Yet they are all animals!
An one animal will always be different from another animal! Yet you’re lumping them in together with no problem until we get to one particular animal: humans.
Says who?
Um, some of the Nazis listened to classical music. Are you saying you’d value the life of a Nazi torturer over your dog? I certainly hope not.
Gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, gibbons, phyllomedusa (a type of frog), koalas, opossums, pandas, and some others.
I don’t know about the knee function, but for “labyrinth of tendons and blood vessels,” I’m gonna go with, “most animals.” Certainly all mammals. That’s why you dissect pigs and frogs in school: they’re pretty similar to humans in that regard.
Oh, of course! Let me ask the creationists to sort out fact from fiction. You just can’t trust those dumb old scientists.
If the fact that they were both shaped like eggs was a natural adaptation that gave them a survival advantage, then perhaps.
No, it doesn’t, because in reality, an atom does not resemble the solar system. Electrons are not localized points, like planets, but “smeared out” wave-like things. They don’t even have a well-defined position most of the time. Furthermore, their orbits are not circular or elliptical. They’re not really even orbits.
Do you really not understand that only living things can evolve, or are you just taking the piss?
No, read my post in which I correct Big Banana. It is not a human we are killing, and you have done nothing to counter this, other than “It IS TOO a human!” which is demonstrably false.
[quote]So birth is the act that christens ‘rights’ upon a person? Then why is there cases of men who kill a pregnant woman and are charged with two counts of murder? This happened in Chicago on 1/7/11
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7886048[/quote]
Yes, I know.
Funny then, that we have another law on the books making abortion legal.
No, she should have the right to kill the embryo because she wanted sex.
True, we can remove it at will.
[quote] The biology of the whole event determines the mechanics of the experience. The mother was a portion of the conception and the results of sex have been well known for decades. Don’t try and tell me she doesn’t need to be a responsible ADULT to partake in ADULT activities.
Pg 5[/quote]
Yes, she needs to use contraception or, failing that, seek an abortion before the child becomes viable.
Prove it. I say it’s not, and science says it’s not. Your opinion doesn’t trump that. If it was a human they wouldn’t call it an embryo, they’d just call it a baby. That’s why there are different words for them.
Where is the science showing that a two-week-old embryo and a functioning child are not the same thing? Uh, hopefully in two sockets in the front of your head. Would you like to see the science showing that they sky is blue, as well?
No, you haven’t. All you said was “yes-huh!”
chortle
Why don’t you take a look at those scientific errors you just made, and then decide if you’re really the one who should be teaching me about science.
NEEVAAARR!!!1
Where and how do I show disrespect towards any woman? You believe her rights supersede all others, including the rights of the infant AND the father?
A more pertinent question, are you willing to change your opinion if shown to be wrong? I know I will, if you can prove to me using universally accepted science that a fetus does not have 1) their own separate DNA from the mother, 2) their own obvious size, 3) their own level of development, 4) including the environment inside their mother and 5) their own degree of dependency. Show me they are not alive throughout the entire process of pregnancy. I will then concede this debate if you can show me to be mistaken in ONE area. Can you give me the same respect? Something tells me no. If such the case, why are you even in PWI on your rant?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I can’t believe the arrogance of this paragraph. “The father who has to pay child support?” Oh, woe is me! [i][u]I engaged in sexual intercourse, and now for my short-sightedness, [/i][/u] [/quote]
Do you believe the mothers rights, supersedes ALL others? From the father, to the infant to any individual?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I must pay child support! You are a joke for even intimating that having to pay child support in any way compares to carrying a child you do not want for 9 months, painfully delivering that child you do not want, and then dealing, not only with the extreme inconvenience and financial burden of caring for the child you do not want, but also the emotional difficulties of constantly being around that child you do not want. To say nothing of the probably less-than-stellar family life that child is going to have, being raised by a (likely) single mother who never wanted them.
Is the sheer magnitude, not only of your disrespect for women, but also your wanton disregard for the well-being of the mother, child, and public finances, becoming clear?[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Where and how do I show disrespect towards any woman? You believe her rights supersede all others, including the rights of the infant AND the father?[/quote]
Let me answer that question with a question:
person A is dying. He needs a kidney transplant to prevent his death. Person B has two healthy kidneys and is a match. Is person B obligated to donate one of his kidneys to person A, even if he doesn’t want to?
If you really want to maintain this fantasy that abortion is murder, you must answer yes. Otherwise, you a hypocrite, and your argument is void.
First of all, no I will not change my opinion because my opinion, however much you disagree with it, is based ultimately on the mother’s rights, not the question of whether the fetus is a person or not. While I think an abortion is regrettable almost as much as you do, you must remember the fact that I am not arguing FOR abortions. I simply want society to respect women’s right to their body just as we respect men’s right to their body. It is the reason pro-choice individuals support the availability of contraception and effective sex education, to prevent the necessity of an abortion. Even if it were shown beyond the shadow of any doubt that an embryo is a person (whatever that means) from the moment of conception, it would not change my opinion, because it is still a violation of the mother’s rights to forbid abortion. I simply don’t care for the fetus in the same way I do for a real, live, fully-developed person. Call me crazy.
Second of all, your demands for proof are asinine, and designed to be impossible to meet. But most of them are irrelevant. A banana has its own seperate DNA. Is it murder to “kill” a banana?
“Their own obvious size?” Really? What the hell does this mean? You mean you’ll concede if you can be shown that a fetus is not a physical object with a discernible volume? If an “obvious size” is all it takes to have rights, we’re really in trouble.
“Their own level of development.” Of course they have their own level of development. An ant has its own level of development, a bacterium has its own level of development, a spore has its own level of development. What’s your point?
“Their own degree of dependency.” First of all, you don’t say what they are dependent on, and furthermore, you don’t explain how it’s relevant.
Hello McFly!! Mother’s body, mother’s choice. It really couldn’t get easier.
And by the way, you show disrespect for women by REFUSING to allow them to control their own bodies, to decide when they will have children. That, OR you refuse to allow them to conduct affairs in the bedroom without state interference, depending on your point of view.
I should have asked before, define the unborn ryan.
Try and back your claims with science please. You never like my science, so provide your own.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
And by the way, you show disrespect for women by REFUSING to allow them to control their own bodies, to decide when they will have children. That, OR you refuse to allow them to conduct affairs in the bedroom without state interference, depending on your point of view.[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
And by the way, you show disrespect for women by REFUSING to allow them to control their own bodies, to decide when they will have children. That, OR you refuse to allow them to conduct affairs in the bedroom without state interference, depending on your point of view.[/quote]
[/quote]
You show disrespect to life of all human beings by refusing to acknowledge that it is a human. You disrespect a woman’s right to know what she is doing to her baby (yes, most women know that they are getting rid of their baby when going to get an abortion) when she goes to get an abortion. You disrespect their mental state and anguish after they come to the full realisation of their actions.
[quote]wfifer wrote:
We’re all drawing lines. The worst thing you can do is pretend that your line is the “right” one.
What makes humans different than the rest of the animal kingdom or any other life?
Is it some level of consciousness or “soul”?
Do embryos have it? On what grounds do you make that assertion? [/quote]
Just gonna post this again, since the two who responded didn’t actually answer any of my questions.
For the record, I don’t think there’s a “right” line, that was the point I was making. We draw a line because it’s useful to do so, the same way we come up with any other rule or law.
Personally I think it’s obvious that what we value about humans is a certain level of self-awareness. That is ultimately what sets us apart from other animals. Rather than try to pinpoint exactly when that develops, I think we can draw the line safely in a place where we know there is no self-awareness, no pain, no viability.
Brother Chris was one hundred percent correct, 'If there is no “right” line there is no “line.” ’ With no disagreement between the subject of abortion, there would be no wrong activity. Because the human is alive throughout ALL of development, the murder of a child is the same as the murder of an adult. The act of murder is simply WRONG. The newest science does nothing but prove the case for life, NOT the inverse. Many new laws in civilized society do nothing of construction IMHO, yet new laws can and do help others in genuine need.
Are you trying to understand if humans and animal life is the same?? Simply NOT the case. Can one single animal learn speech from another species and then teach their offspring? Can an animal solve complex problems and understand the different outcomes? Can one species complete anything close to performing one task a young human child can? Which species forage for the future generations and share food for other animals because they only thought one season ahead, if at all? The answer to each and many other subsequent questions is a resounding NO. Let me know if you still need clarification.
As for the child being sentient, the new-born children do not have this ability until ~4 months. Should we be allowed to kill them because they lack the ability to be self aware?
[quote]wfifer wrote:
[quote]wfifer wrote:
We’re all drawing lines. The worst thing you can do is pretend that your line is the “right” one.
What makes humans different than the rest of the animal kingdom or any other life?
Is it some level of consciousness or “soul”?
Do embryos have it? On what grounds do you make that assertion? [/quote]
Just gonna post this again, since the two who responded didn’t actually answer any of my questions.
For the record, I don’t think there’s a “right” line, that was the point I was making. We draw a line because it’s useful to do so, the same way we come up with any other rule or law.
Personally I think it’s obvious that what we value about humans is a certain level of self-awareness. That is ultimately what sets us apart from other animals. Rather than try to pinpoint exactly when that develops, I think we can draw the line safely in a place where we know there is no self-awareness, no pain, no viability. [/quote]
Nice side step ryan. Did bam bam teach you the technique?
Comparing the life of an adult to the unborn child means you believe the child to be alive. Am I mistaken?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Where and how do I show disrespect towards any woman? You believe her rights supersede all others, including the rights of the infant AND the father?[/quote]
Let me answer that question with a question:
person A is dying. He needs a kidney transplant to prevent his death. Person B has two healthy kidneys and is a match. Is person B obligated to donate one of his kidneys to person A, even if he doesn’t want to?
If you really want to maintain this fantasy that abortion is murder, you must answer yes. Otherwise, you a hypocrite, and your argument is void.
First of all, no I will not change my opinion because my opinion, however much you disagree with it, is based ultimately on the mother’s rights, not the question of whether the fetus is a person or not. While I think an abortion is regrettable almost as much as you do, you must remember the fact that I am not arguing FOR abortions. I simply want society to respect women’s right to their body just as we respect men’s right to their body. It is the reason pro-choice individuals support the availability of contraception and effective sex education, to prevent the necessity of an abortion. Even if it were shown beyond the shadow of any doubt that an embryo is a person (whatever that means) from the moment of conception, it would not change my opinion, because it is still a violation of the mother’s rights to forbid abortion. I simply don’t care for the fetus in the same way I do for a real, live, fully-developed person. Call me crazy.
Second of all, your demands for proof are asinine, and designed to be impossible to meet. But most of them are irrelevant. A banana has its own seperate DNA. Is it murder to “kill” a banana?
“Their own obvious size?” Really? What the hell does this mean? You mean you’ll concede if you can be shown that a fetus is not a physical object with a discernible volume? If an “obvious size” is all it takes to have rights, we’re really in trouble.
“Their own level of development.” Of course they have their own level of development. An ant has its own level of development, a bacterium has its own level of development, a spore has its own level of development. What’s your point?
“Their own degree of dependency.” First of all, you don’t say what they are dependent on, and furthermore, you don’t explain how it’s relevant.
Hello McFly!! Mother’s body, mother’s choice. It really couldn’t get easier.[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
<<< person A is dying. He needs a kidney transplant to prevent his death. Person B has two healthy kidneys and is a match. Is person B obligated to donate one of his kidneys to person A, even if he doesn’t want to?
If you really want to maintain this fantasy that abortion is murder, you must answer yes. Otherwise, you a hypocrite, and your argument is void. >>>[/quote]You really don’t see the wholly invalid nature of this analogy do you?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
<<< person A is dying. He needs a kidney transplant to prevent his death. Person B has two healthy kidneys and is a match. Is person B obligated to donate one of his kidneys to person A, even if he doesn’t want to?
If you really want to maintain this fantasy that abortion is murder, you must answer yes. Otherwise, you a hypocrite, and your argument is void. >>>[/quote]You really don’t see the wholly invalid nature of this analogy do you?
[/quote]
No. He thinks unicorns punt babies into the uterus or something, and a human is a cancer or goat or…I unno. I have him ignored, keeps the blood pressure down.
For me the question about abortion is a dilemma. Its a question beetwen liberty and life.
To be more specific. what is most important:
the womans right to control here own body?
the fetus`s right to life?
To act like this is not a dilemma is dumb and both sides should be able to see the moral conlict here.
So this scientific debate you had going on was irrelevant, the question you must ask yourself is the above,
whats more important: nr.1 or nr.2
I choose nr.1 btw.
[quote]florelius wrote:
For me the question about abortion is a dilemma. Its a question beetwen liberty and life.
To be more specific. what is most important:
the womans right to control here own body?
the fetus`s right to life?
To act like this is not a dilemma is dumb and both sides should be able to see the moral conlict here.
So this scientific debate you had going on was irrelevant, the question you must ask yourself is the above,
whats more important: nr.1 or nr.2
I choose nr.1 btw.[/quote]
What is more serious…not killing someone or a woman’s choice to avoid responsibility? That is the real question from the angle you’re looking at.
However, I much prefer to look at the women’s rights (without excluding the rights of the baby*). If you look at adoption and what the states require of people and the mother if the mother decides to give her child up for adoption is much different than what is required for abortion. They basically make sure she full well knows what she is doing when she gives the child up for adoption compared to barely asking questions when a mother comes in for an abortion.
Murder is never justifiable or is always wrong.
Killing an innocent person is murder.
Babies are innocent persons.
Abortion kills babies.
Abortion is always wrong.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
For me the question about abortion is a dilemma. Its a question beetwen liberty and life.
To be more specific. what is most important:
the womans right to control here own body?
the fetus`s right to life?
To act like this is not a dilemma is dumb and both sides should be able to see the moral conlict here.
So this scientific debate you had going on was irrelevant, the question you must ask yourself is the above,
whats more important: nr.1 or nr.2
I choose nr.1 btw.[/quote]
What is more serious…not killing someone or a woman’s choice to avoid responsibility? That is the real question from the angle you’re looking at.
However, I much prefer to look at the women’s rights (without excluding the rights of the baby*). If you look at adoption and what the states require of people and the mother if the mother decides to give her child up for adoption is much different than what is required for abortion. They basically make sure she full well knows what she is doing when she gives the child up for adoption compared to barely asking questions when a mother comes in for an abortion.
Murder is never justifiable or is always wrong.
Killing an innocent person is murder.
Babies are innocent persons.
Abortion kills babies.
Abortion is always wrong.[/quote]
So you dont see the dilemma then.
florelius, please define the unborn.
[quote]florelius wrote:
For me the question about abortion is a dilemma. Its a question beetwen liberty and life.
To be more specific. what is most important:
the womans right to control here own body?
the fetus`s right to life?
To act like this is not a dilemma is dumb and both sides should be able to see the moral conlict here.
So this scientific debate you had going on was irrelevant, the question you must ask yourself is the above,
whats more important: nr.1 or nr.2
I choose nr.1 btw.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
No. He thinks unicorns punt babies into the uterus or something, and a human is a cancer or goat or…I unno. I have him ignored, keeps the blood pressure down.[/quote]
Chris, I literally LOL’d at this!! Jaa Jaa Jaa = D
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
florelius, please define the unborn.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[/quote]
[/quote]
Do you need me to explain a term that explains itself?
As a sidenote. In my country, its unlegal to abort after some time( I cant remember how many weeks ) and I agree with the law on that one.
Please tell me if the fetus is alive or not. A fetus is a lot of things. So please explain it further.
The word you were looking for is illegal, for your information. Not unlegal, but I knew what you were trying to say.
[quote]florelius wrote:
Do you need me to explain a term that explains itself?
As a sidenote. In my country, its unlegal to abort after some time( I cant remember how many weeks ) and I agree with the law on that one.
[/quote]
Does anyone here have children? Does anyone here have serious hands on experience taking care of seriously handicapped children?
Let me just go ahead and say that the needs of a seriously handicapped child affect FAR more people than just the immediate parents. Regardless of how you stand on abortion people need to recognize that from a practical standpoint a handicapped child affects all immediate family and relatives if not further flung than that. I am at this moment dealing with the financial repercussions of my sister in laws handicapped child and other poor financial decisions.
This doesn’t necessarily impact all argumentation on this point, but it is a practical point I have not seen mentioned here. Most folks seem to think the impact stops at the mother or at most both parents.