Mandatory abortions in case of rape

Post Reply New Topic

One of the arguments I have brought to the table in this thread is that life begins when the sperm becomes an embryo. Since the embryo is developing into a baby, I consider it a human being. Sperm doesn't amount unless it fertilizes, but once it does it is developing into being a baby so it amounts to becoming a functional human being. Vexcalibur has tried to twist this by saying "Sperm doesn't amount to anything until it becomes an embryo, which doesn't amount to anything until it becomes a fetus, which doesn't amount to anything until it becomes a baby", but who uses the phrase "Amount to nothing" to describe a temporary phase? Ever been told by a teacher that you will amount to nothing? He/she obviously didn't mean that you will amount to nothing until next semester or until three years later, but the teacher meant you will amount to nothing for the rest of your life unless that teacher said "You will amount to nothing unless..."

Also, using Vexcalibur's logic which ironically misrepresented the logic I was using, a person in a coma will "amount to nothing" until that person comes back to consciousness. With that in mind, killing someone who is in a coma is justified since that person at that particular moment "amounts to nothing". And he had the nerve to condescendingly call my argument "rhetoric" and say that I'm drawing an arbitrary line when I made it pretty clear that the line begins when the sperm begins the development into a human being. He also had the nerve to call Inuyasha a troll when he almost always resorts to condescension and misrepresentation. If anyone is a troll, it's him. Hey Vex, what makes your argument about bacteria legitimate while my argument is nothing but rhetoric? Do you not understand that both arguments are merely arguments and arrogance doesn't make your argument more legitimate than mine?

well i personally find that line very arbitrary but thats my opinion.
in a way i can easily follow the logic presented in the blastocyte-embryo-fetus-baby argument as we still need to answer when a consciousness appears, from my understanding the latest i would ever think it was ethically correct to abort (unless there is extrenuating circumstances) is around 14 weeks.
now enough about my opinion these differences are just that, differences.

as for the coma patient, we really dont know enough about the brain to even begin to state that a person in a coma is anything but hurt in a way we cant understand yet.
i would view a coma patient as far more alive than a fetus, they actually have a brain pattern that is relatable, something a fetus only develops at 20 weeks.
your argument would work for a person who is brain dead, but not for a coma patient, nor for persistent vegetative disorder syndrome, we simply dont know enough to postulate what the "sick" brainwaves mean to make any kind of justifiable ethical call, so i decide to err on the side of caution and call it a human person, lots of coma patients wake up.
however in brain death you cant measure any activity so they are actually just an empty shell.

now if a human without a consciousness, like a coma patient, or if you take the above into account a brain dead person, isnt human, how come a bunch of cells without a consciousness can be called human??

I have no intent to be balanced, I intend to be right, and that's what I am when I say that fertilized eggs are not the same as a human being.

It seems you were completely unable to understand my suggestion to Inuyasha. My suggestion came just after he used a very dumb argument such as claiming that the other side are just lying to themselves because they gave up to peer pressure. That sort of silly arguments are pretty terrible if you ask. I cannot picture you pro-lifers using "sperm are not human" as an argument, so following my suggestion in this case would make no sense. But it doesn't come to me as a surprise that you are trying to distort the whole thing.

100 pages worth of WP.net discussion, you have failed to explain why is it that obvious that a fertilized egg (a simple cell with human DNA, just like a sperm) has the same value as a human being. The burden of proof is in those that make the claim, maybe it is unfair that since you guys are making the claim, you would have to prove it. And it is pretty bad that in order to win this argument you would have to do actual work, thus I understand that you stick to rhetoric, appeals to emotion and that sort of stuff instead.

Things a coma patient has that an unwanted fertilized egg does not have
* Actual human body
* Breathing.
* Past as a human being, including possible dreams, goals and creations.
* Money to pay health care.
* Family members that want him alive.
* Hope to get better.


Note however, it is not Vexcalibur's logic that was used when deciding it should be ok to kill the coma patient. It was the logic Ace used to arbitrarily separate sperm from fertilized egg, I disagree with this logic, because, to me, there really is not much difference between sperm and a fertilized egg. So, in fact, when Ace uses this logic on a coma patient, it is akin to me using the logic on a fetus, merely a dumb slippery slope argument that proves how lame the logic was in the first place. In other words, Ace has just assisted me in showing that the barrier he himself set between sperm and fertilized eggs was not a great idea.

Nevertheless, I think that if the whole family agrees, the body requires a machine to stay alive and it is a mystery whether it will get better or not, pulling the plug is probably the most humane thing to do.

Life would be much easier, if you considered sperm to be potential lives. That would be the Catholic Church's argument and the reason they oppose condoms, but at least they are consistent.

Sperm are not technically human, they merely have human DNA, we could call them to be technically of human species. What I think is true is: [IF we were to call a fertilized egg human then we would have to call sperm human as well]

When did I ever say a person in a coma isn't human? I was basically saying his logic can be used to justify killing someone in a coma since it doesn't amount to anything since the person at that particular moment amounts to nothing. I was pointing out how me puts my "amounts to nothing" arguments under an immediate short-term perspective which is weird cuz no one even uses the phrase that way. Since when was "amounting to nothing" supposed to be a temporary phase? If I think a baby has the right to live during its 9 months in the fetus, why would I think some guy who got knocked out should die when he's most likely gonna gain consciousness in a matter of weeks or months?

You do realize there's no such thing as being "right" in this case and it's very subjective right?

I brought up the coma patient thing cuz of the fact that you strangely put my "amount to something" argument into a short term perspective rather than a long term one, when everyone uses that phrase to pertain to the long term. That's not a slippery slope argument I'm making, that's exactly what your logic pertains to when you put my argument under an immediate short term perspective. A fetus doesn't amount to anything at this particular moment, and neither does a person in a coma, so if it's okay to abort a fetus then it's okay to kill a person in a coma. Why is it that you make exceptions to your logic, while you consistently quote me outta context as if what you quoted is all there is to it?

What isn't consistent about the fact that fertilized sperm is growing into a human being while unfertilized sperm is growing into nothing unless it fertilizes? Appeal to emotion my ass, my arguments are mostly derived from my principles. I believe in personal responsibility and I don't believe anyone should bail out of the responsibilities of parenting and violate the baby's right to live because they either didn't put a condom on or didn't put one on properly. Personal responsibility isn't too emotionally appealing. btw I have nothing against condoms, I only have something against people not using em properly which not only leads to pregnancies but leads to STD's as well. So it's not like I give a s**t about what the Pope thinks, especially when I'm an atheist who thinks the only way Mary could've gotten pregnant without sex is if a dude jerked off, came on her, and she rubbed her p**** with the cum.

And actually I have put "actual work" into the debate, whatever that's supposed to mean. Hell I wouldn't even call it work. You see, I see intrinsic value in holding a mature debate, making solid points, etc. so it doesn't really feel like a chore to me. Mental stimulation is rewarding in itself. I actually put a lot of effort into how I word things, cuz I have a very disorganized train of thought and I can't always immediately find the exact words I'm thinking of. Keep insinuatin and hatin though, it's your credibility at stake not mine. Oh, and this is the definition of rhetoric:

I haven't put style over substance since I've actually broken down and elaborated on my stance which makes em inconvenient as sound bites, I haven't dressed my arguments up with verbal ornamentation, and there's nothing confused or empty about my talk.

Things a fertilized egg has that unfertilized sperm doesn't have:
*The process of developing into a baby
*Breathing (Yes it is breathing through the umbilical cord and placenta)
*Future as a human being if the process is uninterrupted by miscarriage or abortion and the potential for dreams, goals, and creations
*Family members that have mixed opinions about whether abortion is right or wrong
*Money to take care of its own mother and father once it gets old enough
*The ability to hope assuming its development is uninterrupted.

@ Vexcalibur

I would actually argue that child in the womb has more potential than someone in a coma, because unlike the person in a coma that might not ever wake up, the child in the womb's brain function is increasing at a rapid rate. We know that the overwhelming majority of children in the womb will have a remarkable improvement of brain function as they grow. So even your comparisons stating that someone in a coma has more potential is faulty.

sure it is developing into a baby,
what matters is what seperates a bunch of cells in example A from a bunch of cells in example B
and the only thing you can really come up with that wouldnt be arbitrary is consciousness, as it can be argued that nothing without a consciousness can "feel" loss.

A test for consciousness is highly subjective when it comes to young children particularly infants and children in the womb.

agreed, we dont uderstand consciousness very well, so we have to fill in the gaps with subjective "imaginative reasoning".

though i do find a lot of the research pointing within the same timeframe for the development of the possibility of consciousness.(it might form at the moment its possible or it might take months, we simply dont know.
and there certainly is a lot of humanistic issues, not only concerning the mother, but everyone involved.
i just think its dangerous to let a too extreme ideology, (you have to believe me when i say, i dont write this to offend, i siommply cant think of another way to describe it at the moment) decide either way.
i dont like the mentality that some people adopt about abortion, that it is simply a form of delayed birth control, that is equally as wrong, in my eyes.
simple fact is an abortion will also have a very physical impact on the mother no matter when you do it, so the consequences of reckless sex are high no matter what.

but i also think that most of the humanistic issues can be worked with to a very large degree without prohibiting abortion, that will just bring a lot more issues on the table.
it would be nice to live in a world where abortion wasnt necessary, but i honestly think it is at the moment, simply too many reckless people and even protective measures have their limits.
if realistically possible a deadline of about 12 weeks would, for reasons already stated several times before, be as certain as we can be at the moment that there would be no consciousness present.