PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
I'm pro-death, except in cases where it directly causes me pain. And then i'm pro-pain.
Lazy vs Crazy said:So you're against the death penalty, and the war in Iraq?
Yeah, I'm pro-death too. Pro death-penalty (with sufficient safeguards), pro-choice, pro-doctor assisted suicide, let the families pull the plug on vegetables, etc.PantherLotus said:I'm pro-death, except in cases where it directly causes me pain. And then i'm pro-pain.
speculawyer said:Yeah, I'm pro-death too. Pro death-penalty (with sufficient safeguards), pro-choice, pro-doctor assisted suicide, let the families pull the plug on vegetables, etc.
The population is growing too much as is . . . no need to slow down those that wish to move along.
Kipz said:Really? People here actually think they can enforce what women do with their own bodies? They're the ones who have to go through the pain of child birth and the costs and life-changing effects of raising a child. I don't give a flying fuck if a couple of cells could one day acheive sentience, it's like trying to enforce drug laws, prostitution laws you CAN NOT control what people do with their bodies.
That was kind of my point. Look at how effective those have been. Yeah no drugs or prostitutes anywhere...rainking187 said:Er...what? Drug laws and prostitution laws are enforced.
pnjtony said:Life ends when brain activity cease's.
Life begins when brain activity begins which is around the second trimester.
/end
Crayon Shinchan said:Anyway... for all the fancy words JD uses... his sticking point is that;
it doesn't matter if blastose does not have sentience currently, it only matters that it can be achieved.
M3wThr33 said:What? And you mean let GOD judge people as opposed to "Judge, lest not ye be judged?" Too many people aren't above breaking that rule.
Agent Ghost said:Haven't you people learned ANYTHING!?
Topics like abortion and gay marriage are non issues that the politicians use to distract voters while we get FUTA with evil economic policy that only benefit the people who sponsored the election. The fucking economy is failing hard and you're still talking about this stupid bullshit. Fuck off.
JayDubya said:My point is that you're dealing with a living human being proceeding with normal physiological development.
Since you're dealing with a human being, and since a newborn is not keenly aware of its surroundings or capable of making any decisions, yet it is afforded with rights, the significant difference between the fetus and the newborn seems to be one of geography, such that the birth canal is a magical cave that bestows personhood as a reward for passage.
Someone that is "brain dead" has had an actively working brain and now it's gone kaputsky. It can't be repaired. GG NO RE.
Kipz said:Really? People here actually think they can enforce what women do with their own bodies? They're the ones who have to go through the pain of child birth and the costs and life-changing effects of raising a child. I don't give a flying fuck if a couple of cells could one day acheive sentience, it's like trying to enforce drug laws, prostitution laws you CAN NOT control what people do with their bodies.
If this is all you've got to offer, kindly GTFO.No Means Nomad said:...
I'm about to go aggressive homicide on your ass.
It's obvious from your confrontational nature down to the semantics of terms like "murder" means this thread is nothing more than a battlefront for you to confront non-believers, and not a discussion.
If it's such a slippery slope and it's already happened where are the repercussions? Really, I'd like to know, because we've had abortion for hundreds of years.
What else is subject to "slippery slope" logic? Things like Women's rights, I would guess, and the control they have over their own body.
There's not any "THIS MEANS IT'S LIFE", or this argument wouldn't exist to start with. It's a developing life form, but it is not a full life form at fertilization. We could make the argument that it is merely an incomplete life form in an unfertilized state, and that a woman allowing herself to have her period and the expulsion of ovum is wreckless abandonment and unintentional homicide.
Abortion is going to happen regardless at the end of the day. Why make it dangerous for women who see it as a neccesity (because abortion is not a light decision)? The legal system isn't exactly in shape to start cracking down on "crimes" like this.
Lazy vs Crazy said:This leads to a situation where abortion is available only to the upper classes of society, and poor people are unable to get abortions. Are you really comfortable with that?
speculawyer said:Yeah, I'm pro-death too. Pro death-penalty (with sufficient safeguards), pro-choice, pro-doctor assisted suicide, let the families pull the plug on vegetables, etc.
The population is growing too much as is . . . no need to slow down those that wish to move along.
wayward archer said:I don't think a woman who is raped or whose life is threatened by the pregnancy should have to carry it to term just because some people see this as a easy way out of being promiscuous.
Anyone who would mandate that a woman potentially live in hell for the rest of her life because every single day after she was raped she is reminded of that experience by the changes pregnancy had on her body or by the emotional and physcial toil of being responsible for a living being forced upon her that was created out of that experience is the greater evil than anyone who advocates for abortion any time for any reason in my opinion. Some people are strong enough to go through that, sure, but not all of them are, and that's just cruel to do that to anyone who isn't.
JayDubya said:That's not the rationale, though. The rationale is that while rape is a vile crime, justice is not served by killing an innocent, tangential third party that is incapable of aggression.
jakershaker said:Abortion has always been an option and it always will be regardless of what some vocal misinformed wackos think.
When someone has decided to get an abortion they don't give a shit about people discussing when life begins, they've already made up their mind on a more sane basis.
TheHeretic said:Science doesn't support your claim that a fetus is a third party in the least.
JayDubya said:"Science" is agnostic to law and politics. The presence or absence of a third party in legal terms is not something the monolithic entity known as "science" can determine, even if you ask it, because that "variable" is "user-defined."
Knowledge of science should inform such things, however. At present, it does not. As I have already pointed out, my argument is informed by my knowledge of biology, not made in spite of it, or made because of any belief in deities or souls.
Textbook biological science has an answer for what is alive and what is not.
The abortion debate is about what's "really" alive, which "Science" doesn't have an answer for, because the question doesn't even rationally compute.
TheHeretic said:The abortion debate is not about whether or not a fetus is alive because thats a stupid question.
You continually refer to the fetus as a third party, this isn't true. You can also stop appealing to authority, it makes you look like an idiot.
JayDubya said:Not sure how you figure that, but hopefully it means that those of you who want to consider some living human beings to be subhuman property to kindly leave my state.
Guybrush Threepwood said:Abortion should be legal.
If you don't support abortion then don't get an abortion; if you do support abortion then get an abortion if you so choose.
Don't bother anyone else about it.
JayDubya said:"Appealing to authority" would be to state that x says so, and because x is virtuous in some way, we can leave it at that.
So I'm not even sure what your criticism is.
TheHeretic said:My criticism is stop telling me about how great your biology knowledge is when you can't even identify the difference between an independent being and a parasite living in a commensal relationship.
JayDubya said:May I just take a moment to note how absurdly fucking warped it is to call a human child a parasite?
Done.
Incidentally, not to keep citing biological knowledge or anything, but if you think you're scoring points with this sort of thing, try again: a parasite is a member of one species that preys upon members of another species.
JayDubya said:Incidentally, not to keep citing biological knowledge or anything, but if you think you're scoring points with this sort of thing, try again: a parasite is a member of one species that preys upon members of another species.
numble said:Intra-species parasitism does occur.
Please see: Hughes, J.M. 1996. Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) In The Birds of North America, No. 244. (A. Pool and F. Gill. eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
JayDubya said:Since it's doubtful I have any access to a database that includes The Birds of North America, if it's a PDF, highlight and copy the relevant text.
From what I've seen when that term is used, it's referring to competition for resources, and there's a word for that that isn't parasitism.
TheHeretic said:Instead of arguing semantics why don't you actually try debating whats important, the point. How is pointing out theres another word of any relevance to this discussion. I already admitted the use of the word parasite can change depending on the definition.
It's a book, and I'm not gonna go borrowing it and scanning the relevant sections for you.JayDubya said:Since it's doubtful I have any access to a database that includes The Birds of North America, if it's a PDF, highlight and copy the relevant text.
From what I've seen when that term is used, it's referring to competition for resources, and there's a word for that that isn't parasitism.
JayDubya said:Since your point in that post seemed to lie with attempting to disparage me as any kind of authority on science (and I don't believe I've appealed to my own authority or stated I'm an "expert" by any means, I've simply cited my own logic and appealed to the musty old textbooks at my side as needed) by your use of the term "parasite," as if me trying to protect some parasite makes me stupid because it's a parasite, debating your point is unfortunately all wrapped up in debating your wording.
Sapiens said:I'm not reading this whole thread, but if you an anti-choice male, you're a douche.
Why don't you all go hold hands outside the cemetary?
Sapiens said:Why don't you all go hold hands outside the cemetary?
TheHeretic said:My point was a fetus is not a third party because of its dependency on its host.
JayDubya said:In that case, the parasite statement is a non issue, and you're simply wrong because dependency does not preclude someone from being a third party.
It makes them a minor.
JayDubya said:In that case, the parasite statement is a non issue, and you're simply wrong because dependency does not preclude someone from being a third party.
It makes them a minor.
Vennt said:You two need to realise that you are at an inevitable impasse. Neither will change the opinion of the other, neither is right or wrong, just different and equally valid points of view. Banging on the same thing is just going to cause you to get heated, and we know where that ends.
TheHeretic said:No, because the outcomes of our perspectives are completely different. Pro abortionists aren't forcing people to have abortions. Anti abortionists are taking away a womans right to have an abortion.
I'm pro-choice and always have been, but I find this logic to be counter-productive at best. Most people who are pro-life hold those beliefs because they see abortion as a fundamentally moral issue. To them, your statement is no different than saying "If you don't believe in murder, don't kill anyone."TheHeretic said:If you don't believe in abortions don't have one, its simple.
Don't force your morality on other people.
JayDubya said:Then why was everyone so up in arms before the Civil War?
Slave owners and people that supported the owning of slaves as a way of life weren't forcing others to buy slaves. Abolitionists tried to take away the property rights of plantation owners.
How dare they impose their personal morality on others?
Grug said:If conservatives/fundys etc are so pro-life, why don't they decrease the number of abortions taking place by putting ALL their efforts into offering real alternatives and support networks.
I guess its easier to just tell the poor, confused woman that they will burn in hell.
It's interesting to me to hear you say this. I personally don't believe that all killings can be so neatly separated into these two categories.JayDubya said:Nothing wrong with removing life support from the brain dead (removing a positive != adding a negative).
TheHeretic said:One is a morally ambiguous issue, the other isn't. And you actually accuse others of using a strawman?
JayDubya said:What straw man? Both situations are human rights abuses. Both situations are fundamentally similar.
JayDubya said:If whether or not something is right or wrong is simply a matter of whether the majority of people in a geographic region consider it to be "morally ambiguous," slavery was not considered morally ambiguous at all, but very clear cut, and quite appropriate. Slaves weren't people, afterall, so why not use a valuable natural resource?