Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Mandatory abortions in case of rape

Page 8 of 19 [ 296 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Mar 2011, 7:46 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Abortion kills no children. It does, however, drive the stupid crazy.


Actually, abortion does kill innocent children. We have all the basic requirements for life present, the child is genetically human, so I can argue we are alive while we are still inside the womb. I used brain activity as the milestone because it is essentially our CPU, the instant we have brain activity I would argue the child is definately alive because the child's "CPU" is active.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Mar 2011, 8:01 pm

The level of activity you are describing - using your 40 week rhetoric- could be outdone by the free solar calculator that the bank hands out when people open new accounts. Not exactly an impressive CPU.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Then you agree once it is day 40 after conception that the window for an abortion is over?
No, the woman should be able to abort anytime before birth. But I am just saying that there is little excuse not to at least make it legal early. There are many ways to tell without doubt a bunch of cells that lack a brain and many other vital things are definitely not human yet. As for the rest, it is a blurry line, but I'd rather have a solid legal boundary - birth.

Quote:
No, he/she is a living being long before that if you have brain function and a heartbeat, he/she is alive.

Alive in the sense it has live cells but it is not human. Our culture does not really care at all about life by itself. We don't care about mosquitoes even though they are more developed than certain fetus phases...

Plus it is a closed system afterall, it is pretty arguable whether it is a whole new life until a separation from host.

Quote:
Last I checked human women did not give birth to Iguanas, in fact we aren't even genetically compatible, plus most reptiles do not give birth to live young, the young are hatched from eggs.

Exactly.

My point is that "brain activity" is not a great milestone towards humanity. Even the primitive reptiles seem to have "brain activity", yet we do not call them human.

Inuyasha wrote:
I wish Pro-abortion nuts would stop trying to dehumanize children in order to be able to rationalize the mass murder of said children.

Can you really dehumanize something that is not human?

How about we stopped trying to anthropomorphize a bunch of cells that have no human traits by calling them a "child"? In a way, that is devaluing to humanity.


_________________
.


Last edited by Vexcalibur on 19 Mar 2011, 8:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

19 Mar 2011, 8:07 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
We have all the basic requirements for life present



Which is why it takes a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and specialization to save fetuses that come out early, right?


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


cave_canem
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

19 Mar 2011, 8:17 pm

LKL wrote:
It's not that men have no valid opinion, but that the stakes are higher for women. Cave Canem has asked you to imagine whether or not your opinion would be different if you were a woman, you have refused to acknowledge that there might be a valid difference from which you would benefit by imagining such a thing. You refuse to do this simple thing so steadfastly that I can only presume that you know your opinion might change.


Thank you LKL. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough. But that is the heart of it.

ikorack wrote:
He is not demonizing women he is demonizing women who abort ergo he is not sexist(As he is not demonizing the entire gender and he is not demonizing a group of people because they are women). I could go on to say that he demonizes men who take steps towards the same results but this really would serve no purpose.


I understand that this is your view, and I do not agree. I have read enough of his posts to interpret his position differently. He has made enough sweeping generalizations about women and pregnancy/delivery as a whole that I am confident in my interpretation. He cares about women so long as they are zef's (just as much as he cares for male zef's). Once they are grown and become pregnant they are simply incubators for new zef's, and should not be given the opportunity to make any decisions regarding abortion (let me note: he believes this for the female gender as a whole). Pregnancy and delivery for all women is, after all, simply an "inconvenience" in his mind. Perhaps you'd be more accepting of my position if I said that I believe his ideology is misogynistic. But that may just be splitting hairs.

In any event, we will never agree on this, so I think it is safe to say that we can agree to disagree at the very least. And there really is no point in going back and forth any longer.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Mar 2011, 8:23 pm

LKL wrote:
It's not that men have no valid opinion, but that the stakes are higher for women. Cave Canem has asked you to imagine whether or not your opinion would be different if you were a woman, you have refused to acknowledge that there might be a valid difference from which you would benefit by imagining such a thing. You refuse to do this simple thing so steadfastly that I can only presume that you know your opinion might change.


Stakes may be higher for the woman but there is someone that isn't being represented that has an even larger stake in it than the woman, and that is the child.

@ cave_canem

Oh so the race card isn't going to work so you're going to say I'm sexist, that's real original.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Mar 2011, 8:25 pm

Can thing without real conscience of anything and without any independence or thought or relationship with the actual environment really have a stake at anything?


_________________
.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Mar 2011, 8:29 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Can thing without real conscience of anything and without any independence or thought or relationship with the actual environment really have a stake at anything?


Actually you can only speculate that it doesn't think, and that it is not aware, and I question the objectivity of said speculation.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Mar 2011, 8:37 pm

I can safely claim a bunch of cells that have not formed a brain do not "think".

As for fetuses with a brain. I think that the real speculation comes from assuming that brain activity equals thinking. I for one do not remember any philosophical thought I had during my pregnancy years. So, I kind of ... doubt it. More so, it is not just thinking is it? I bet my dog thinks. But in order to have a stake at something, you would need to have conscience, free will, ambitions of living. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so you would need to prove that the fetus has those...


_________________
.


cave_canem
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

19 Mar 2011, 8:38 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Oh so the race card isn't going to work so you're going to say I'm sexist, that's real original.


Seems to me you're the one who called my comments "sexist bulls**t". I then pointed out that I believe your comments, and position, is sexist.

So what, Inuyasha, the race card isn't going to work so you're going to say I'm sexist? Let me guess, if you say it, it is original? :lol:



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

19 Mar 2011, 8:41 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
I can safely claim a bunch of cells that have not formed a brain do not "think".

As for fetuses with a brain. I think that the real speculation comes from assuming that brain activity equals thinking. I for one do not remember any philosophical thought I had during my pregnancy years. So, I kind of ... doubt it. More so, it is not just thinking is it? I bet my dog thinks. But in order to have a stake at something, you would need to have conscience, free will, ambitions of living. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so you would need to prove that the fetus has those...


Human womb do not give birth to litters of puppies. Quite frankly the complexity of the child's thoughts while in the womb is immaterial, because quite frankly the child is in a dark environment that is not very stimulating as far as being interesting. Furthermore the child is burning through a lot of energy specifically for growing.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

19 Mar 2011, 8:42 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
I can safely claim a bunch of cells that have not formed a brain do not "think".

As for fetuses with a brain. I think that the real speculation comes from assuming that brain activity equals thinking. I for one do not remember any philosophical thought I had during my pregnancy years. So, I kind of ... doubt it. More so, it is not just thinking is it? I bet my dog thinks. But in order to have a stake at something, you would need to have conscience, free will, ambitions of living. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so you would need to prove that the fetus has those...


Human womb do not give birth to litters of puppies. Quite frankly the complexity of the child's thoughts while in the womb is immaterial, because quite frankly the child is in a dark environment that is not very stimulating as far as being interesting. Furthermore the child is burning through a lot of energy specifically for growing.


NOW JOO WANNA KILL ZEE PUPPIES?! ! :twisted:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

19 Mar 2011, 8:47 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
I can safely claim a bunch of cells that have not formed a brain do not "think".

As for fetuses with a brain. I think that the real speculation comes from assuming that brain activity equals thinking. I for one do not remember any philosophical thought I had during my pregnancy years. So, I kind of ... doubt it. More so, it is not just thinking is it? I bet my dog thinks. But in order to have a stake at something, you would need to have conscience, free will, ambitions of living. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so you would need to prove that the fetus has those...


I think what it really comes down to is: what does it do to society? Abortion frees up society and pisses off stupid people. So...I'd guess I'd have to say it sounds great to me.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

19 Mar 2011, 8:48 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
I can safely claim a bunch of cells that have not formed a brain do not "think".

As for fetuses with a brain. I think that the real speculation comes from assuming that brain activity equals thinking. I for one do not remember any philosophical thought I had during my pregnancy years. So, I kind of ... doubt it. More so, it is not just thinking is it? I bet my dog thinks. But in order to have a stake at something, you would need to have conscience, free will, ambitions of living. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so you would need to prove that the fetus has those...


Human womb do not give birth to litters of puppies. Quite frankly the complexity of the child's thoughts while in the womb is immaterial, because quite frankly the child is in a dark environment that is not very stimulating as far as being interesting. Furthermore the child is burning through a lot of energy specifically for growing.


NOW JOO WANNA KILL ZEE PUPPIES?! ! :twisted:


**points up**

what he said :lol:

what i said inuyasha, wasnt that bacteria is the same as a human, but that bacteria is alive, so if you want to base your argument on the fact that its living in itself then you would have to care about the bacteria as well.

as for the rest, its on page 7.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Mar 2011, 8:50 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Human womb do not give birth to litters of puppies. Quite frankly the complexity of the child's thoughts while in the womb is immaterial,

Maybe for the discussion as a whole. But for the claim that the "child" has a bigger stake at this than the host you would really need it to have "complex thoughts".


_________________
.


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

19 Mar 2011, 9:05 pm

skafather84 wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
I can safely claim a bunch of cells that have not formed a brain do not "think".

As for fetuses with a brain. I think that the real speculation comes from assuming that brain activity equals thinking. I for one do not remember any philosophical thought I had during my pregnancy years. So, I kind of ... doubt it. More so, it is not just thinking is it? I bet my dog thinks. But in order to have a stake at something, you would need to have conscience, free will, ambitions of living. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so you would need to prove that the fetus has those...


I think what it really comes down to is: what does it do to society? Abortion frees up society and pisses off stupid people. So...I'd guess I'd have to say it sounds great to me.
Real mature, call anyone who disagrees with you on a subject with a lot of room for subjectivity stupid. You're right though, I am too nosey. The next time I see someone get stabbed in an alley, I should keep walking and act like nothing happened since it's none of my business.