Abortion

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

A growing embryo isn't 1) conscious, or 2) living as an individual.

Sleeping people technically aren't conscious. You could say that infants, small children, handicapped people, and the deathly ill don't live as individuals, because they depend upon others, and sometimes even machines, to survive.

Killing an embryo can't be like killing a sleeping person because embryos aren't conscious or independent? That's almost as ridiculous as saying that life can't be like a box of chocolates because it's not heart-shaped. I'm sure what the person who brought this up meant was that killing a fetus is like killing a sleeping person, in a moral sense. Who says that a person has to be conscious or biologically independent to be spiritually alive? If we believe abortion is murder, then we believe abortion is murder, and any further argument is as pointless as trying to prove that God does or doesn't exist. "Murder" isn't even a science- or logic-based term, anyway. The very word implies presupposed morality. Ask a Puritan if killing a witch is murder. Ask a passionate animal-rights advocate if killing an elephant is murder.

[ May 16, 2004, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

[SuperMarioBro2]

Ouch Bolt you got PZoHatized! Hell, you may as well call yourself sleeping at night not a person for 7 or 8 hours, Bolt, then someone kills you in your sleep, and he doesn't get a penalty, how would you feel? Oh wait a minute, YOU'D BE DEAD. Yeah, so basically that's what you're saying if you think a fetus is not a person, how would you feel if someone told you that YOU weren't a person, yup, that's what a fetus goes through when abortion is happening, so think before you call an unborn baby not a person next time.


_________________________________________________
But before I go, remember this...

Yes, Bolt misused the word conscious. He has a tendency to gloss over points.

The difference, as I said before, is whether or not you have a mind. When you are asleep, you have a mind, it just isn't doing much. But when you're a fetus, you don't have a mind yet.

And anyway, the definition of Murder IS logically derived. People don't want to die. They really really don't want to die. So people form governments to prevent people from killing them.

Fetuses, on the other hand, aren't developed enough to not want to die. They neither want it or fear it. For they are fetuses. And embryos are even more obvious.

There you go. Murder is illegal because people don't want to die, so they band together in a government, not because of any issues of morality.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

The difference, as I said before, is whether or not you have a mind.

Define "mind". And, still, in a moral sense, whether or not somebody has a "mind" might be meaningless.

When you are asleep, you have a mind, it just isn't doing much.

BTW, your mind is actually more active in your sleep than when you're watching TV.

But when you're a fetus, you don't have a mind yet.

You have a mind as a fetus, but it's extremely underdeveloped and incapable of performing elaborate or abstract functions.

And anyway, the definition of Murder IS logically derived. People don't want to die. They really really don't want to die. So people form governments to prevent people from killing them.

Want isn't logic. Want is emotion.

Fetuses, on the other hand, aren't developed enough to not want to die.

I didn't know that there was such a thing as death until I was at least four years old. So, obviously, as a three-year-old, I didn't really care much about dying. But I don't think it would have been right for somebody to kill me.

They neither want it or fear it. For they are fetuses. And embryos are even more obvious.

That does not define life. At least not in my book.

There you go. Murder is illegal because people don't want to die, so they band together in a government, not because of any issues of morality.

But some governments murder. And some governments allow abortion and Capital Punishment, things that many people consider to be murder. The concept of murder isn't a legal one as much as it's a moral one.

[SuperMarioBro2]

Sorry but I guess PZoH wins, I wouldn't wanna cross her in a bad situation.

Originally posted by Sir Bolt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't see how stepping on lives before they have the chance to live...

Hmm, now does that even make sense?
</font>[/quote]How doesn't it? Two people have sex. A baby is being formed. The baby is killed before it lives. ...?

...

*gets it*

Oh shut up. =p

It's logic, it's just logic which uses emotion be a factor. Because emotion IS a factor, a major factor, in sociology. How something "feels" to people is a major factor in society. Thusly, any logical examination of society still has to acknowledge emotion, or else it's just a set of arbitrary axioms.

But my reasoning was ultimately based on logic.

But some governments murder. And some governments allow abortion and Capital Punishment, things that many people consider to be murder. The concept of murder isn't a legal one as much as it's a moral one.

No, murder is a legal term. The non-legal term is kill.

Different countries have different laws. Countries which murder are typically completely and utterly non-democratic, (and therefore my argument doesn't apply because there is a tyrrany) or consist of people who feel (short-sightedly) that they should NOT extend the right to not be killed to other human beings.

^^^Kindly shut your ass. PZoH just rants, usually quite incompetently, and you backing her up is actually worse. Try having something useful to say. Here's an example.

Define "mind". And, still, in a moral sense, whether or not somebody has a "mind" might be meaningless.

Probably not what UserGoogol would say, but here's my take. Mind: what allows you to think and feel. Fetuses don't think, nor feel. Also, as Bolt brought up some time, fetuses haven't impacted anyone, except possibly a horrible reminder of a girl's rape. Maybe you are taking a human life, but if so, it's a human life nobody cares about. That's why killing comatose people, deathly ill people, sickly people, even babies with terrible illnesses is bad-- they've all impacted someone. Fetuses really haven't.

BTW, your mind is actually more active in your sleep than when you're watching TV.

Good job, PZoH.

You have a mind as a fetus, but it's extremely underdeveloped and incapable of performing elaborate or abstract functions.

Sooo... you have a mind, it just doesn't function. How is that really different from not having a mind?

Want isn't logic. Want is emotion.

The want to survive is logic. Pretty much everything has the instinct of self-preservation. Sorta like the instinct to reproduce. Wanting to be cool, wanting to look good, wanting luxury items, those are emotions. But self-preservation is logic and instinct.

I didn't know that there was such a thing as death until I was at least four years old. So, obviously, as a three-year-old, I didn't really care much about dying. But I don't think it would have been right for somebody to kill me.

But unless you were raised by wolves, you probably affected some other people in that time span. Therefore they would have been affected by your death, so it wouldn't be particularly good to go stabbing you when you were three years old.

That does not define life. At least not in my book.

Good for you. That's your opinion, you're entitled to it.

But some governments murder. And some governments allow abortion and Capital Punishment, things that many people consider to be murder. The concept of murder isn't a legal one as much as it's a moral one.

The governments that murder in cold blood aren't generally supported by the populace, I'd guess. Abortion and capital punishment... whether you consider them murder or not is an opinion. Different kinds of "murder" may be moral or legal issues, really.

[ May 16, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Prince Toad ]

[SuperMarioBro2]

First off, I wasn't motivating her to type more good stuff, I was simply stating the current results of the arguement. And I'm not shutting mine till you shut yours. And I had something to say in the topic, READ instead of flipping through pages.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

It's logic, it's just logic which uses emotion be a factor.

That would make my viewpoint logical - my viewpoint is logic that uses religion to be a factor.

Because emotion IS a factor, a major factor, in sociology. How something "feels" to people is a major factor in society.

I'm not talking about society. I'm not talking about broad statistics. I'm talking about individuals. Why does gardener Joe Adams, the son of Jacob and Amelia Everton Adams, have a problem with killing a squirrel for fun? If I were to watch somebody strangle a four-year-old child, the last thing that would come to mind is the damage murder does to our society and our species as a whole.

No, murder is a legal term. The non-legal term is kill.

So the innocent women who were burned during the Salem Witch trials were not murdered? A ruler who puts thousands of people to death because of their religious beliefs is not a murderer?

Different countries have different laws. Countries which murder are typically completely and utterly non-democratic, (and therefore my argument doesn't apply because there is a tyrrany) or consist of people who feel (short-sightedly) that they should NOT extend the right to not be killed to other human beings.

But unnecessary destruction of innocent life is unconditionally evil, isn't it? To you, I mean. The definition of "murder" is way too subjective to be strictly legal. People within a given country will disagree on it. How do you explain the people who believe that things like abortion or Capital Punishment or fighting a war are murderous?

[ May 16, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

PT, replying to the mind thing about the difference

it takes up surface area

[Juliet]

A fetus is rarely aborted.

Geez people, learn the terms before you try to debate the issue.

I know the terms. I just don't see a fetus as being any more alive and human than an embryo, so I'll apply most of my arguments to both.

However, when the technology is available, it will happen. Therefore, it's only logical to allow access to it.

But is it logical to allow access to nuclear weapons because that technology is available as well? Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

However, if the polls are any sort of indicator, it seems that such a law would represent the viewpoint of only around half of the populace. Thus, I'm pretty much squarely pro-choice; damned if I'll ever approve of it, but damned if I'm going to force everyone in the country to agree with my religion-derived viewpoints.

But you'll let people who support abortion force you to agree with their viewpoints?

The brain is still very undeveloped while the fetus is around. Without a brain, there is no mind.

The brain is underdeveloped, but present even during an embryo's development. A born baby's brain is underdeveloped, and will be so until adulthood. Does this affect the person's humanity?

Without a mind, it's just another animal.

In terms of its emotional value to you, perhaps. But scientifically, it's human.

^No. Wow. DBZM, you know I don't care for that idiot crap. A CORRECT comeback would have been:

"Guns are available. I'll buy them."

Only if the purpose of a gun was to be bought.

Prematurely born babies often are not independant or conscious. They cannot survive without life support.
Just thought I'd point that out.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

^^Oh. So now we're using what's scientific to justify religion? [img]graemlins/lol.gif[/img]

[theflyingfish]

The entire abortion debate is absurd, really. There is absolutely no justification for an abortion where the couple simply doesn't want the kid. Not ready to have a child? Then don't have sex. The biological purpose of sex is procreation, so if a person isn't ready to raise a child then they shouldn't create the thing in the first place.

The only case where an abortion could possibly be justified is one where the woman has been raped.

As for the humanity of the embyro of fetus, if it's not a human embyro or fetus, then I'd like to hear just what you suppose the thing is.

[imported_AJ Middleton]

Semantics semantics semantics. I figured I would be blasted on that. By "conscious," I meant...fully alive? Yes, I broadly used the term while giving too much credit to the intelligence of certain people.

A fetus is not an embryo. Will I have to start branding again?

An embryo is a developing mass of cells. Whether it has a soul or not is up for religion to believe in. Scientifically, an embryo is no different then any other cell in the body. OMG it has a developing brain. Well guess what. That "brain" is much different than a neonatal brain.

Abortion is one of those things that WILL be done, regardless of its legality. Like Lurch said elsewhere, better to have it legal and regulated than illegal and unregulated.

[imported_AJ Middleton]

Originally posted by The Flying Fish:
The entire abortion debate is absurd, really. There is absolutely no justification for an abortion where the couple simply doesn't want the kid. Not ready to have a child? Then don't have sex.

As for the humanity of the embyro of fetus, if it's not a human embyro or fetus, then I'd like to hear just what you suppose the thing is.

Easy to say that when you're not there. And you know as well as I do that sticking to the biological reason for anything is idealistic and absurd itself.

A skin cell is a human skin cell, but that doesn't make it human.

Allow me to correct you: The entire abortion debate is absurd when the people who are debating it have never been put in the situation.

[Flamethrower Mario]

Want isn't logic. Want is emotion.

I'm sure this has been covered already and responded to, but when I was reading, this jumped out at me, and I disagree. People want what's logically best for them. That is all.

[theflyingfish]

Originally posted by Sir Bolt:
Easy to say that when you're not there. And you know as well as I do that sticking to the biological reason for anything is idealistic and absurd itself.

A skin cell is a human skin cell, but that doesn't make it human.

Allow me to correct you: The entire abortion debate is absurd when the people who are debating it have never been put in the situation.

People put themselves in the situation. It's not as if a person just wakes up one day and finds themselves unfairly pregnant. Any time someone has sex and winds up pregnant, IT'S THEIR FAULT. This is a matter of carelessness and irresponsibility.

My point about the biological aspect was that people know that when they have sex they're running the risk of the girl getting pregnant. People knowingly have sex even when they're not ready for a child, and then when they get pregnant they think they have the right to kill the embryo, simply because they couldn't control their hormones. That's flat-out wrong.

If you want to look at this purely scientifically, all any adolescent human being is is a developing mass of cells.

[ May 17, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: The Flying Fish ]

^Quite.