Page 9 of 10 [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

11 Dec 2013, 7:46 am

Ganondox wrote:
It's the logical conclusion of what you said. Blaming the problems of poverty on the poor existing. Tsk tsk. Poor people are people, not a population number. I agree that fighting poverty is a much more important issue than abortion, but that doesn't by extension make abortion right.


I do not blame the problems of poverty on the poor existing. You continue to read into my words more than is there based on your personal faulty assumptions. I believe poverty is one of the most significant problems in this country and in most parts of the world. In my opinion, it is not the poor that are the problem, it is those who drive others into poverty. My point is that a complete ban on abortion would exacerbate the problem of poverty significantly. It is difficult to make progress on poverty when you continuously increase the ranks of the needy.

Quote:
I'm not demanding anything from anyone, just debating what I think the law SHOULD be. The law as it is is completely irrelevant.


And I respect the fact that you are entitled to your opinion and your right to express it. As the current law is directly related to the way you would wish to see the law changed, I feel that it is quite relevant. You cannot talk about what the law should be if you do not acknowledge what laws exist now. Personally, I have issues with using any laws to regulate morality other than those absolutely vital to maintaining order and improving the economic stability of a nation. This goes for many laws (unrelated to the current topic) on the books, and I let my representatives to Congress know my positions on a regular basis.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,807
Location: USA

11 Dec 2013, 9:24 am

Okay, there is a lot I want to say, like how medical condition is synonymous with disease and pregnancy is a normal state of a healthy mammal or the first point was a completely irrelevant tangent or how no matter how many brains you cut up and cross compare and how much behavior you observe you can't feel what it's like to be a fly or "zef"s aren't simply parasites that randomly appear in woman to suck out their blood enternally, but that is way too segmented for me to reply to it all, and most of it's not important. It's really hard and time consuming to insert a shiton of quote tags into a text wall. Anyway, I think this really boils down to one thing. Your group thinks it's okay to terminate a life as long as it's dependent and causing a significant burden, even if temporary, and I think it's absurd because I believe that right of life trumps that as death is permanent, being pregnant, as serious as it is and the lasting effects it has, is temporary. Another thing is a I think the need for so many abortions is a symptom of greater problems that should be dealt with involving poverty, woman's rights, education, and moral standards. It's like hunting more deer because we killed all the wolves.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,672
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

11 Dec 2013, 9:51 am

Ganondox wrote:
"zef"s aren't simply parasites that randomly appear in woman to suck out their blood enternally.


just for the record, plenty of parasites are temporary. Mosquitos and ticks are some of the most common parasites, and only attack the host until the host is no longer needed.

Quote:
Anyway, I think this really boils down to one thing. Your group thinks it's okay to terminate a life as long as it's dependent and causing a significant burden, even if temporary, and I think it's absurd because I believe that right of life trumps that as death is permanent, being pregnant, as serious as it is and the lasting effects it has, is temporary.


You are oversimplifying. Many people who do not agree with do not believe it is ok to terminate a life, as they have a different defintion than you about when life begins. Pregnancy is temporary, but its effects are permanent.[/quote]

Quote:
Another thing is a I think the need for so many abortions is a symptom of greater problems that should be dealt with involving poverty, woman's rights, education, and moral standards. It's like hunting more deer because we killed all the wolves.


Other than dealing with "moral standards," I would agree that addressing these problems would be much more effective in reducing the number of abortions than legislation by far.

I do not understand your hunting analogy. Could you please elaborate some?


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


raisedbyignorance
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,235
Location: Indiana

11 Dec 2013, 7:20 pm

First of all, it is rather offensive that the title of this thread uses the term "support abortion".

It is not called pro-abortion. It is called pro-choice.

I do believe that any decision regarding pregnancy is a very emotional and difficult choice to make. That being said, I think taking away options (regardless of intention) does more harm on the mother's psyche than good. A woman gets raped against her own will...now imagine that woman having to have that child against her own will. The rape victim will just feel that the ability to make decisions is being taken away from her little by little. That can be mentally damaging.

Granted I know that not all rape victims experience this but I do think a good number of them do.

That said, no one is proud of having abortions. No one likes having them. But in the end, it does become their last resort.

I'm all for decreasing abortions, but it should be done through honest means such as family planning and non-bias counseling. You will not accomplish anything through restriction tactics or those ridiculous ultrasound bills. I hate those ultrasound bills because they're nothing more than a sneak tactic to guilt people out of having abortions.

Also if gun and drug restrictions have taught us anything else, it's that restrictions don't really restrict. People will find a way around those restrictions often to far more dangerous and criminal results than had those restrictions not existed in the first place.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,807
Location: USA

11 Dec 2013, 7:31 pm

raisedbyignorance wrote:
First of all, it is rather offensive that the title of this thread uses the term "support abortion".

It is not called pro-abortion. It is called pro-choice.



:roll:


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

11 Dec 2013, 10:43 pm

appletheclown wrote:
All your making it sound like to me is people who get abortions are sexually inexperienced whiners.

Please be specific. What has anyone said that makes those who seek abortions sound like they are "sexually inexperienced"? And how is that even remotely relevant? Why do you think that it is "whining" to not want to be pregnant against your will?
Quote:
And WTF is a zef?

This has been explained already, but here it is again: Zygote/Embryo/Fetus.
Quote:
Abortion is actually more dangerous to the mother than giving birth is, any abortion.

You are not only factually incorrect, you are off by an order of magnitude.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22270271/

Edit: GGP already submitted a couple of links, and your response was that they were 'invalid because they were government funded'? That they were 'invalid because the women were old'?
Dude, can you even read an abstract? And do you really think that an NIH study is less valid than a bit of data coming from a private clinic? Seriously, you're delusional.

Quote:
Infection, infertility, and death are all raised as a chance drastically when getting an abortion.

None of these are more likely in an abortion than they are in childbirth.
Quote:
Fear of taking one of natures gift (god's gifts) and treating it like trash is your business, yes, but this thing you call a 'zef' is still living, made out of human cells, and is living. It doesn't matter if it is a parasite, it is still human. A woman's embryos are human, how could what you call a 'zef' not be?

If it's a gift, it's sometimes a white elephant.
If it's alive, so are the billions of animals slaughtered every year in horrific conditions - and unlike the zefs, those animals can, and do, suffer. If it is human, so is every fingernail paring and tumor ever removed from a human. If it is genetically unique, human, and alive, so is every unimplanted zygote flushed down the toilet by a woman unaware that anything was even a little different that particular month.

appletheclown wrote:
So risking yourself for another living thing is completely ludacris?

Of course not. It can be quite noble, if it's a choice.
Quote:
Female apache attack heilo pilots must be a disease too, because it obviously isn't healthy, routine, normal, mundane or life sustaining to get blown up by an rpg.

Soldiers, in general, choose to risk themselves in combat. We no longer have an active draft, in the US at least.
Quote:
If that were all true, why am I able to bear being asperger's ridden and lonely? I must have a disease, why don't I go get myself aborted too. Oh yeah the homeless must be a disease as well.

Asperger's is certainly a medical condition. Homelessness is more of a sociological or cultural condition than a medical one, although it can be caused or exacerbated by medical conditions like schizophrenia.



Mamselle
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 131

11 Dec 2013, 11:22 pm

1. It's still none of anyone's business but the woman involved.

2. appletheclown: the correct spelling is "ludicrous." Spelling it like that lame rapper makes you look ignorant. Mind you, your position in this topic is already doing that quite well enough.

3. I would imagine that I, as a registered nurse, am the only person currently posting to this thread who has actually attended women who were receiving abortions. So I can tell you that abortion in the first twelve weeks is medically on a par with getting your tonsils out. It doesn't require a hospital stay and you are in the clinic for a few hours, tops. How someone can have spun this into "abortions are always more dangerous than childbirth" is one of those mysteries of profound stupidity that only come up when you're around "pro-life" types.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,807
Location: USA

12 Dec 2013, 3:17 am

sonofghandi wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
"zef"s aren't simply parasites that randomly appear in woman to suck out their blood enternally.


just for the record, plenty of parasites are temporary. Mosquitos and ticks are some of the most common parasites, and only attack the host until the host is no longer needed.

*internally, it being temporary had nothing to do with my point.
Quote:

Quote:
Anyway, I think this really boils down to one thing. Your group thinks it's okay to terminate a life as long as it's dependent and causing a significant burden, even if temporary, and I think it's absurd because I believe that right of life trumps that as death is permanent, being pregnant, as serious as it is and the lasting effects it has, is temporary.


You are oversimplifying. Many people who do not agree with do not believe it is ok to terminate a life, as they have a different defintion than you about when life begins. Pregnancy is temporary, but its effects are permanent.


[/quote]
Yes it's oversimplifying, but here the definition of life appears to be entirely based on homeostasis, thus independent.
Quote:

Quote:
Another thing is a I think the need for so many abortions is a symptom of greater problems that should be dealt with involving poverty, woman's rights, education, and moral standards. It's like hunting more deer because we killed all the wolves.


Other than dealing with "moral standards," I would agree that addressing these problems would be much more effective in reducing the number of abortions than legislation by far.

I do not understand your hunting analogy. Could you please elaborate some?


I'm not here to debate the morality of casual sex, the way I see it the need for abortions is what would make it immoral, but the hunting analogy is that a problem is solved in a morally questionable way when the problem wouldn't even exist in the first place if it wasn't for morally questionable activity. Ultimately the problem is solved, but it's the not natural way.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


dizzywater
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 275
Location: sitting by the computer

12 Dec 2013, 6:22 pm

raisedbyignorance wrote:
First of all, it is rather offensive that the title of this thread uses the term "support abortion".

It is not called pro-abortion. It is called pro-choice.


I'm sorry that this caused you offense.

I started this thread originally addressed to pro-lifers, asking why they support abortion if the woman has been raped if they believe it is wrong from the potential baby's point of view. Then I took the word Pro-lifers out of the title because I didn't want to put other people off commenting.

My country does not allow abortions in the case of rape, women have had their passports confiscated if they have reported a rape and are thought likely to travel to seek abortion. I blame dogmatic religion which is not compassionate. I used the words "support abortion" as an abbreviation for "Why do so many pro-lifers say that abortion is murder and cannot be defended, then contradict themselves and say they would support the idea of abortion being allowed in some cases, not dependant on the health of anyone involved, but because of an attack on the woman by a man". That was too long for a title.

My own belief is any woman should be able to choose what to do with her body, her choice to have sex, her choice to carry a child or not.

I know women who have travelled for abortion, I know one who hadn't money to travel and was afraid to tell anyone her intentions, so instead of asking for money so did it herself, she bled heavily and was three days in hospital. She was worried about lying to the doctors, so told one nurse, that nurse told her it didn't make a difference medically so she should still keep it secret rather than risk some other nurse or doctor feeling obliged to call the police.

I wouldn't have had an abortion if I'd been pregnant after I was raped. I was young and believed it was wrong, I also believed it was somehow my fault I'd been raped by one man in the presence of another man who declined the rapists' invitation to also do me. For a long time I went over what I should have done differently. I never reported it for fear of judgement by others, if I'd been pregnant people would have found out, that was my biggest fear then. Young girls should not be made to feel responsible for these things. Pro-lifers are making young girls suffer if they get pregnant, the pro-lifers do not know the circumstances, the girl does , by telling her she is evil to have an abortion only pushes the responsibility more onto the woman and off the man, no matter the circumstances of sex.

All women should be protected from unwanted pregnancy in whatever way is possible.

All women are precious no matter if they are religious or not, no matter if you approve of their lifestyle or not. Putting some blob of human tissue as more important is wrong, it is misogynist. Human tissue is commonplace, anyone can see the difference if they want to between a person and a blob and know which ought to have priority.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

14 Dec 2013, 7:33 pm

Ganondox wrote:
Exactly why abortion is legal in case of rape.

Making abortion legal only in the case of rape is bullshit and actually results in tons of rape victims getting forced to stay pregnant. It is ridiculously patriarchal that you have to expect the decision by some dude judge before you are allowed to choose what to do with your body.
Quote:
If morals were only up to the individual, than what's the point of having any laws?


You tend to equate laws with morals. They are not the same thing.

Laws should be fair and have a practical purpose. The practical purpose in outlawing murder is to give safety to people. The practical purpose in outlawing killing endangered species is preservation of biodiversity. The practical purpose of keeping abortion legal is to reduce welfare costs and also to reduce risk and death from people that have to abort.

91 wrote:
Even Peter Singer, grasps the reality that the distinction you are making there is arbitrary

If birth is arbitrary, then any of the other distinction are super stupidly arbitrary. Birth is by far the least arbitrary possible distinction ever. It is very easy to tell when it happens. It is also a metric ton more appropriate than conception. Hey, if you want to provide super-person rights to something, at least try to pick something that has something that remotely looks like a brain, and not just a zygote (bunch of cells). And if you want to pick a moment between conception and birth, that would be silly and the realm of pseudoscience.

Discussion about personhood is irrelevant though. Even if that parisitic entity was a person, it is not a super-person. It doesn't deserve more rights than the host.


_________________
.


Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,807
Location: USA

16 Dec 2013, 5:00 am

How about you actually read what I say instead of projecting your view of "pro-lifers"?

Vexcalibur wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
Exactly why abortion is legal in case of rape.

Making abortion legal only in the case of rape is bullshit and actually results in tons of rape victims getting forced to stay pregnant. It is ridiculously patriarchal that you have to expect the decision by some dude judge before you are allowed to choose what to do with your body.


I never said that that abortion should only be legal in case of rape, just that it should be legal in such cases, and I'm generally against abortion. Also, you seem to be completely unable to separate theory from execution, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up dude judges, I never brought up dude judges and no one else did.
Quote:

Quote:
If morals were only up to the individual, than what's the point of having any laws?


You tend to equate laws with morals. They are not the same thing.

Laws should be fair and have a practical purpose. The practical purpose in outlawing murder is to give safety to people. The practical purpose in outlawing killing endangered species is preservation of biodiversity. The practical purpose of keeping abortion legal is to reduce welfare costs and also to reduce risk and death from people that have to abort.


Um, no, actually, I don't equate laws with morals. Only someone who completely fails at reading comprehension and thinks everyone who disagrees with them must be an idiot would conclude that. What I'm saying is law and morals are connected, if you look at different societies the relationship between morals and laws is obvious; laws reflect a society's moral values. You saying laws should be fair is exactly why laws are based on morals, if a society believed in survival of the fittest and there was no moral qualm with murder there would be no laws against it. The purpose of laws isn't to be practical, practicality is just so they are enforceable and people will enforce them, the purpose of laws is to prevent crime, and the idea of what is or is not crime depends on social norms.
Quote:

91 wrote:
Even Peter Singer, grasps the reality that the distinction you are making there is arbitrary

If birth is arbitrary, then any of the other distinction are super stupidly arbitrary. Birth is by far the least arbitrary possible distinction ever. It is very easy to tell when it happens. It is also a metric ton more appropriate than conception. Hey, if you want to provide super-person rights to something, at least try to pick something that has something that remotely looks like a brain, and not just a zygote (bunch of cells). And if you want to pick a moment between conception and birth, that would be silly and the realm of pseudoscience.

Discussion about personhood is irrelevant though. Even if that parisitic entity was a person, it is not a super-person. It doesn't deserve more rights than the host.

Biologically speaking conception is much less arbitrary as it's always the exact point a genetically unique organism is created, it's a very clean cut line, even if zygotes are by no means sentient and there is no moral reason to start there. Because of caesarean birth and life support for pre-mature infants birth is now rather arbitrary, being inside or outside of the womb doesn't make much of a difference.

Also, your super-person claim is ridiculous, why would "right to surgery" naturally trump "right to life"? Completely illogical to conclude it has more rights. The fetus is not a super person by any means. And finally, fetuses are by definition not parasitic for numerous reasons, so you can stop calling them as such, it just shows you don't understand biological terms.

Ps. A zygote is a single cell, a group of cells is a morula. No abortions take place in that stage as the pregnancy wouldn't have been detected, by the time people figure out it's usually a proper embryo as when menstruation would have been is usually 4 weeks after conception, the brain, heart, and spinal cord begin being development in the first three weeks. You can't even get your facts straight.


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


dizzywater
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 275
Location: sitting by the computer

16 Dec 2013, 6:28 am

Ganondox wrote:
no matter how many brains you cut up and cross compare and how much behavior you observe you can't feel what it's like to be a fly or "zef"


Interesting comparison, about the same size but a fly can survive without a host, does that make it really really bad to kill a fly?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

16 Dec 2013, 7:24 am

Ganondox wrote:
I never said that that abortion should only be legal in case of rape, just that it should be legal in such cases, and I'm generally against abortion. Also, you seem to be completely unable to separate theory from execution, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up dude judges, I never brought up dude judges and no one else did.

Vex brought up 'dude judges' because dude judges, dude legislators, and just all-around dudes are always the ones trying to take away women's rights to bodily autonomy.
Quote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Discussion about personhood is irrelevant though. Even if that parisitic entity was a person, it is not a super-person. It doesn't deserve more rights than the host.

Biologically speaking conception is much less arbitrary as it's always the exact point a genetically unique organism is created, it's a very clean cut line, even if zygotes are by no means sentient and there is no moral reason to start there. Because of caesarean birth and life support for pre-mature infants birth is now rather arbitrary, being inside or outside of the womb doesn't make much of a difference.

The only way you can pretend that being inside or outside of a person "doesn't matter" is if you don't give a damn about the rights of that person. This entire discussion is about whether or not one organism has the right to use another organism's body, regardless of its stage of development; no adult has the right to hijack another's body, and no zef should either. That is what Vex mean by 'a zef is not a super-person:' a zef does not have more rights than adult human beings do, which is what you are claiming by saying that it has a right to use a woman's body without her permission in order to preserve itself.
Quote:
... fetuses are by definition not parasitic for numerous reasons, so you can stop calling them as such, it just shows you don't understand biological terms.

And you're using semantics to disingenuously pretend that you're missing the point. We all know that a zef does not fit the biological definition of a 'parasite' because it is of the same species as the host, but the very reason that that caveat was initially included in the definition of 'parasite' by early biologists is that there are many situations where one organism fits the definition in every particular except that it is of the same species. An unwanted zef might not be biologically a parasite, just like the 10th male anglerfish glomming onto the female anglerfish like a tick might not be biologically a parasite, but you have to admit that aside from that little technicality, there hare a hell of a lot of similarities there.
Quote:
Ps. A zygote is a single cell, a group of cells is a morula. No abortions take place in that stage as the pregnancy wouldn't have been detected,

Not exactly. No abortions can take place before the zef has implanted, because implantation is the beginning of pregnancy and, by definition, abortion is the end of pregnancy before term labor. However, a great many zefs are naturally expelled without ever implanting, not even qualifying for the term 'spontaneous abortion.' A great many more are further spontaneously aborted before there are any signs of pregnancy detectable by the woman or all but the most sensitive of blood tests.
Quote:
...the brain, heart, and spinal cord begin being development in the first three weeks. You can't even get your facts straight.

Bullshit. By that definition of 'begin to develop,' you might as well put that beginning at fertilization along with everything else. The migration of cells from the various dermal layers does not a CNS make. The primitive twitching of bifurcated muscle fibers does not a heart make. I've posted this before, but here is some basic info again:
http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/external_main.htm
The thing still has pharyngeal arches at 4 weeks, for goodness' sake.
The 3rd picture below, 33 days, is what you're talking about.
Image
another view:
http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/i ... evelopment

Also? It matters not a whit that I can't 'feel' what it's like to be a fly; I can 'feel' what it's like to be a zef for most of its development, though, when I'm unconscious asleep and not dreaming. That is to say, a zef does not have the processing power to even be as conscious as a fly. When I see someone's brains leaking out their ears, I don't have to be inside their head to know that they're dead; likewise, when I see that the neurons don't exist, or that they're not connected, I don't have to be inside a zef's head to know that it's not sentient.



Ganondox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2011
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,807
Location: USA

17 Dec 2013, 9:55 pm

dizzywater wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
no matter how many brains you cut up and cross compare and how much behavior you observe you can't feel what it's like to be a fly or "zef"


Interesting comparison, about the same size but a fly can survive without a host, does that make it really really bad to kill a fly?


How the hell does surviving without a host make it worse to kill them suddenly? That's perverted morality. IMO this is a bit absurd, but it would actually be less moral to kill the dependent as they are at a disadvantage.

LKL wrote:
Ganondox wrote:
I never said that that abortion should only be legal in case of rape, just that it should be legal in such cases, and I'm generally against abortion. Also, you seem to be completely unable to separate theory from execution, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up dude judges, I never brought up dude judges and no one else did.

Vex brought up 'dude judges' because dude judges, dude legislators, and just all-around dudes are always the ones trying to take away women's rights to bodily autonomy.


Can you provide any actual evidence that the "pro-life" side is in fact male dominated? I'm pretty sure religion and by extension through correlation politics is a much more important factor than gender in the sides. If you want to know how gender factors with that, religion is more common among females, but so is being liberal, so I assume gender more or less cancels out there. There are plenty of woman who are against abortion, even some who claim to be feminists. I don't like the framing of this as it implies that anyone who is against the "pro-choice" side is a misogynic, when that is obviously NOT the case. If men could get pregnant as well most people would have the same stance, ultimately the debate boils down to HUMAN rights, one way or another, not bias against women.
Quote:

Quote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Discussion about personhood is irrelevant though. Even if that parisitic entity was a person, it is not a super-person. It doesn't deserve more rights than the host.

Biologically speaking conception is much less arbitrary as it's always the exact point a genetically unique organism is created, it's a very clean cut line, even if zygotes are by no means sentient and there is no moral reason to start there. Because of caesarean birth and life support for pre-mature infants birth is now rather arbitrary, being inside or outside of the womb doesn't make much of a difference.

The only way you can pretend that being inside or outside of a person "doesn't matter" is if you don't give a damn about the rights of that person. This entire discussion is about whether or not one organism has the right to use another organism's body, regardless of its stage of development; no adult has the right to hijack another's body, and no zef should either. That is what Vex mean by 'a zef is not a super-person:' a zef does not have more rights than adult human beings do, which is what you are claiming by saying that it has a right to use a woman's body without her permission in order to preserve itself.

Actually the entire discussion is about why abortions should be allowed specifically for rapes. :P

"This entire discussion is about whether or not one organism has the right to use another organism's body." No, it's not, that's what the "pro-choice" side frames it as. The "pro-life" sides frames it as "the entire discussion is about whether it's one organism has the right to take the life of another organism in order to reduce the first organisms hardships." Either framing looks morally atrocious to disagree with, but both sides would say the others claim is inaccurate, as you do by saying "zef" life is irrelevant and the nature of not being a "super-person" means it has the right to be slain, and while the first part can be argued, the second claim is just absurd. Unless you are a fan of corporeal punishment you don't kill someone for breaking the law, you give them the appropriate punishment. Anyway, saying the fetus is hijacking the body without permission doesn't really make biological sense, the idea of consent is legal and just doesn't work in this context, if anything saying consent is relevant it can only be argued the baby was given implicit consent to exist, and the baby couldn't give consent itself, so by default it get's what it needs to survive as that's what happens when someone cannot give consent. Going through with pregnancy is the default. On the other hand, abortion is an active action, not a passive one. Thus the person doing the abortion would be taking action, while the "zef" is not by existing. Because of the difference between passive and active action the "zef" is not violating anything by existing. If you want a legal comparison to show I'm not just BSing, look into the debate of euthanasia, particularly passive vs. active euthanasia.
Quote:

Quote:
... fetuses are by definition not parasitic for numerous reasons, so you can stop calling them as such, it just shows you don't understand biological terms.

And you're using semantics to disingenuously pretend that you're missing the point. We all know that a zef does not fit the biological definition of a 'parasite' because it is of the same species as the host, but the very reason that that caveat was initially included in the definition of 'parasite' by early biologists is that there are many situations where one organism fits the definition in every particular except that it is of the same species. An unwanted zef might not be biologically a parasite, just like the 10th male anglerfish glomming onto the female anglerfish like a tick might not be biologically a parasite, but you have to admit that aside from that little technicality, there hare a hell of a lot of similarities there.


It's not like you haven't done any debating of semantics. Anyway, it's not just being of the same species, that's actually less important. Here is a further explanation: http://www.cephalopodiatrist.com/2012/1 ... sites.html
And no, a 10th male angler is not a parasite for the same reasons, but I'm going to assume that if you made a sliding scale of parascity it would be slightly more parasitic in nature due to it's method of genesis relative to the female angler.
Quote:

Quote:
Ps. A zygote is a single cell, a group of cells is a morula. No abortions take place in that stage as the pregnancy wouldn't have been detected,

Not exactly. No abortions can take place before the zef has implanted, because implantation is the beginning of pregnancy and, by definition, abortion is the end of pregnancy before term labor. However, a great many zefs are naturally expelled without ever implanting, not even qualifying for the term 'spontaneous abortion.' A great many more are further spontaneously aborted before there are any signs of pregnancy detectable by the woman or all but the most sensitive of blood tests.


Yes, it will technically cease to be a zygote before it reaches the uterine wall so zygotes won't aborted by that logic, but that's not the point. The point is that while it's still a blob of cells no intentional abortions are going to take place because no one is going to intend to abort as they don't know they are pregnant, when people are deciding to abort the embryo is usually a bit more developed. Spontaneous abortion is not the subject of debate.
Quote:

Quote:
...the brain, heart, and spinal cord begin being development in the first three weeks. You can't even get your facts straight.

Bullshit. By that definition of 'begin to develop,' you might as well put that beginning at fertilization along with everything else. The migration of cells from the various dermal layers does not a CNS make. The primitive twitching of bifurcated muscle fibers does not a heart make. I've posted this before, but here is some basic info again:
http://www.embryo.chronolab.com/external_main.htm
The thing still has pharyngeal arches at 4 weeks, for goodness' sake.
The 3rd picture below, 33 days, is what you're talking about.
Image
another view:
http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/i ... evelopment


I meant what I said and I said what I meant. The heart and CNS do in fact start development during the 3rd week. Obviously it's not a properly working CNS and circulatory system at that point, I never claimed that. The point is that it's more developed than a blob of cells, blobs of cells don't have pharyngeal arches. :P
Quote:

Also? It matters not a whit that I can't 'feel' what it's like to be a fly; I can 'feel' what it's like to be a zef for most of its development, though, when I'm unconscious asleep and not dreaming. That is to say, a zef does not have the processing power to even be as conscious as a fly. When I see someone's brains leaking out their ears, I don't have to be inside their head to know that they're dead; likewise, when I see that the neurons don't exist, or that they're not connected, I don't have to be inside a zef's head to know that it's not sentient.


You obviously aren't very versed in philosophy as you don't seem to understand the question of minds and the preposition here. The point is that in all actuality you can't even be sure a brain is required to be sentient, that's the jest of it. However, my argument is not base on potential sentience. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be aborted while unconscious during sleep. Yes, you have memories the zef doesn't have as you have been awake, but still, does that automatically make it right?


_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes

Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html


Mamselle
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 131

18 Dec 2013, 12:07 am

Ganondox wrote:
I meant what I said and I said what I meant.


An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent. ;)

Incidentally, that percentage is the same with regard to abortion that is none of your business if it's not your womb.