Another abortion article...

[Alpine Trooper]

Keirador:

Your arguments fail to strike me as impressive nor relevant to the topic at hand. Instead of providing us with an intellectual response or reason, you find symbolic similiarities between slavery and abortion and therefore conclude both are unethical.

Unfortunately for you, Keirador, you can not distinguish between right and wrong. You can keep providing us with your irrelevant rationalizations so we further understand your inability to distinguish between aborting a fetus and the black right movements or you can simply...

Give up. The debate is over, you lose.

 

[cgannon64]

Give up. The debate is over, you lose.

Gee, that's convincing.

Alpine Trooper, since you are supporting the action - killing fetuses - I'd please you like to defend your reasoning. Why is it acceptable to kill a fetus?

 

[Pyrite]

Because concsiousness is a terrible gift. I would definitly not want to give that to anyone.

 

[cgannon64]

I hope that was a joke, and an ironic joke, the kind where you make a joke that is opposite to what you beleive.

 

[Pyrite]

Yr hopes to no avail mang.

 

[cgannon64]

Do you then support global suicide? Do you support global suicide via nuclear weapons? Is it the prerogative, nah, the responsibility of the United States to eliminate as may poor people suffering from consciousness as possible?

 

[Pyrite]

No way. But I have genetic disorders mate. I don't wanna pass that hsit along. Hear?

But yeah global suicide is a pretty funny idea.

 

[feline_dacat]

You don't think the law can ever be wrong?

Sure, it can be wrong, but I think the law is reasonable when it comes to abortion. It leaves it open to those who believe differently - those who don't wish to have an abortion don't have to, and those who believe that the mother/the parents should be able to able to chose are able to make that decision up til a point.

 

[Keirador]

Keirador:

Your arguments fail to strike me as impressive nor relevant to the topic at hand. Instead of providing us with an intellectual response or reason, you find symbolic similiarities between slavery and abortion and therefore conclude both are unethical.

Unfortunately for you, Keirador, you can not distinguish between right and wrong. You can keep providing us with your irrelevant rationalizations so we further understand your inability to distinguish between aborting a fetus and the black right movements or you can simply...

Give up. The debate is over, you lose.

You haven't contributed to the debate whatsoever, so far, except to flame. My statements about civil rights were to demonstrate that the law can be wrong, and were quite relevent in context. My points relevant to the abortion issue itself are:
A) According to biological classification, the life of a new organism begins at conception, when a fertilized egg has it's own unique traits and can no longer be considered a part of the mother or the father. This is not contingent on it's stage of development or intelligence or ability to feel. It may be an unthinking, unfeeling cell, but it is an individual organism, it is not simply a part of the mother- the cells of the mother are genetically distinct from that of her child. The life of an organism begins at it's conception. If you have issue with this statement, it must be taken up with the scientific community.
B) Current abortion laws in the United States take into account only the rights of the mother, while neglecting the rights of the embryo. This is flawed, as technically abortion ends the life of an individual human being, which is murder, which is prohibited. The Roe v. Wade ruling is based on privacy rights, which do not make a crime legal, they simply prevent the exposition of evidence that was gathered through infringing on privacy rights. Correctly applied, privacy rights would prevent a woman from being prosecuted for having an abortion, but would not allow the creation of abortion clinics that freely advertise their services. If the people want abortion to be legal, it must be secured through a Constitutional Amendment saying that murder is OK in this instance.


Please, if you are able, discuss these points or introduce your own arguments rather than attacking my personal character or intellect.

 

[cgannon64]

feline_decat: The thing is, anti-abortion people can't just sit around and feel happy that they don't have to have an abortion. We feel that people having abortions is downright wrong, unconscionable. It doesn't make sense that a reasonable society would allow it.

 

[Pyrite]

You failed to understand. I would support the death of my own genetic spawn because I have schizophrenic tendencies. It's kind of bladed and bloody, so I would like to continue the act of genetic information gathering, but stop the process of the genetic printing. I'd not like to pass on that. You may be seeing blackwhite, but alas you'll just go blind.

Edit. Cgcannon. Since when has this been a reasonable society?

 

[Keirador]

Sure, it can be wrong, but I think the law is reasonable when it comes to abortion. It leaves it open to those who believe differently - those who don't wish to have an abortion don't have to, and those who believe that the mother/the parents should be able to able to chose are able to make that decision up til a point.

Again, there is a basic difference in thinking here. I believe the state has a right to intervene on the part of those who cannot stand up for themselves. If this was a procedure in which no one was involved but the mother, I would agree with you. However, the aborted child is a human being; I believe it is a being that has rights. There really is no scientific or rational backing for claiming that the aborted child is not a human being; biologically, the life of an individual begins at conception. That is not my opinion, or my religious belief, that is scientific classification. By what basis can you scientifically disagree with this?
The question, therefore, is whether the unborn child has rights. You believe it does not, likely because it is undeveloped. I believe it does, because I believe that all humans have inalienable rights, one of those rights being a right to life, a right which supercedes a right to privacy or a right to not be uncomfortable. I do not presume to decide which humans have rights or not. The only safe position, for me, is that everyone has rights, including unborn children.

 

[Perfection]

I don't understand why you would support the pre-emptive killing of people to prevent them from catching "consciousness" and not support the killing of regular, adult, virile people as well.

I believe consciousness is what makes us human. If it's not yet conscious it's not yet human.

 

[cgannon64]

You failed to understand. I would support the death of my own genetic spawn because I have schizophrenic tendencies. It's kind of bladed and bloody, so I would like to continue the act of genetic information gathering, but stop the process of the genetic printing. I'd not like to pass on that. You may be seeing blackwhite, but alas you'll just go blind.

I see, so you don't want to pass on your own genes but have no problem with others passing on their? That makes more sense.

Cgcannon. Since when has this been a reasonable society?

Never. Banning abortion would be a step closer, though.

 

[cgannon64]

Because consciousness is what makes us human. If it's not yet conscious it's not yet human.

How do you define conscious?

 

[Keirador]

I believe consciousness is what makes us human. If it's not yet conscious it's not yet human.

So I can kill you when you're asleep and it's OK?

 

[Pyrite]

I see, so you don't want to pass on your own genes but have no problem with others passing on there? That makes more sense.

Pretty much. Though you've caught my interest with the global suicide thing. That's a pretty funny idea. I like the idea where everyone under the age of 35 attacks everyone over that age. I suppose if we're going to be a nonsensical society let's at least institutionalize our nonsense.

 

[cgannon64]

No no no no no don't give in to a nonsensical society just because that is the status quo.

 

[Pyrite]

Please, I celebrate my nonsense. I'm a barbarian.

Tompkins square yo

 

[Perfection]

How do you define conscious?

It's quite a slippery definition suffice it to say it involves the ability to be aware of oneself and to think things out.

So I can kill you when you're asleep and it's OK?

I am abstracting conciousness to a slightly wider definition of being capable of thinking. Perhaps sentient is a more appropriate term