# Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say



## Black Wraith (Feb 29, 2012)

> Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are ?morally irrelevant? and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
> 
> The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not ?actual persons? and do not have a ?moral right to life?. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
> 
> ...


----------



## αce (Feb 29, 2012)

*Spoiler*: __


----------



## ryne11 (Feb 29, 2012)




----------



## Coteaz (Feb 29, 2012)

> They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
> 
> Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
> 
> “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”


Agree wholeheartedly with this part. Keeping severely disabled (mentally or physically) infants alive is pointless, as they will never accomplish anything on their own and will continue to be an economic and emotional drain on their families throughout their lifespans.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Feb 29, 2012)

They are right, a baby and fetus are the same. 

The ridiculous part is using it as an excuse to commit more murders, and not less.


----------



## Black Wraith (Feb 29, 2012)

Coteaz said:


> Agree wholeheartedly with this part. Keeping severely disabled (mentally or physically) infants alive is pointless, as they will never accomplish anything on their own and will continue to be an economic and emotional drain on their families throughout their lifespans.



IIRC, Hitler basically said the same thing too...


----------



## Coteaz (Feb 29, 2012)

Black Wraith said:


> IIRC, Hitler basically said the same thing too...


Hitler owned a dog, therefore owning dogs is evil.

Do you have an actual rebuttal?


----------



## αce (Feb 29, 2012)

Hitler mentioned 6 posts in.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Feb 29, 2012)

Coteaz said:


> Agree wholeheartedly with this part. Keeping severely disabled (mentally or physically) infants alive is pointless, as they will never accomplish anything on their own and will continue to be an economic and emotional drain on their families throughout their lifespans.



This isn't Sparta.


----------



## Black Wraith (Feb 29, 2012)

Coteaz said:


> Hitler owned a dog, therefore owning dogs is evil.
> 
> Do you have an actual rebuttal?



No, but he used this policy to justify the killing of a heck of a lot of people.


----------



## αce (Feb 29, 2012)

> This isn't Sparta.



Unfortunately. Sucks.


----------



## Coteaz (Feb 29, 2012)

Red Queen said:


> This isn't Sparta.


I know, I don't have crippling debt.



Black Wraith said:


> No, but he used this policy to justify the killing of a heck of a lot of people.


I'm fairly certain that the Holocaust was not solely caused by Hitler wanting to kill invalid infants.


----------



## Superstars (Feb 29, 2012)

Black Wraith said:


> No, but he used this policy to justify the killing of a heck of a lot of people.



lol

Hit the showers *Coteaz*


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 29, 2012)

The whole thing leans on an enormous failure to understand biology.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Feb 29, 2012)

Black Wraith said:


> No, but he used this policy to justify the killing of a heck of a lot of people.



Stating that someone has implimented the same policies before, doesn't really mean anything.


----------



## bullsh3t (Feb 29, 2012)

Coteaz said:


> Agree wholeheartedly with this part. Keeping severely disabled (mentally or physically) infants alive is pointless, as they will never accomplish anything on their own and will continue to be an economic and emotional drain on their families throughout their lifespans.



I agree with you it's a valid point.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Feb 29, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Unfortunately. Sucks.



If that was the case I'd be left for dead being premature.

You know how many people would die at birth for having some little thing wrong with them? Do you understand or are you still in your own little world? We are human and we don't think like unintelligent animals that leave babies just because they are sick. Elephants, monkeys, etc. don't abandon their young because there is something wrong with them. A mother has a sentimental bond with a child even if it has a defect, please respect that.


----------



## Hand Banana (Feb 29, 2012)

Black Wraith said:


> No, but he used this policy to justify the killing of a heck of a lot of people.



Lol are we really going there? Hitler also killed Russian for being Communist. Guess that's comparable too.


----------



## Coteaz (Feb 29, 2012)

Red Queen said:


> You know how many people would die at birth for having *some little thing* wrong with them? Do you understand or are you still in your own little world? We are human and we don't think like unintelligent animals that leave babies just because they are sick. Even intelligent animals don't abandon their young because there is something wrong with them. A mother has a sentimental bond with a child even if it has a defect, please respect that.





			
				Coteaz said:
			
		

> Keeping *severely disabled (mentally or physically)* infants alive is pointless, as they will never accomplish anything on their own and will continue to be an economic and emotional drain on their families throughout their lifespans.


You may want to read a little more carefully.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Feb 29, 2012)

Coteaz said:


> You may want to read a little more carefully.



I wasn't talking to you. If the US did practice what the Spartans did, my argument is on point.


----------



## Coteaz (Feb 29, 2012)

Red Queen said:


> I wasn't talking to you. If the US did practice what the Spartans did, my argument is on point.


You realize that Ace is talking about _300_-type Spartans, right?


----------



## Ruby Tuesday (Feb 29, 2012)

Oh come on killing babies is *much* more fun then having an abortion.


----------



## Mintaka (Feb 29, 2012)

Indeed.

You can't have an abortion with a steamroller.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Feb 29, 2012)

Killing sperm same as killing babies.


----------



## The Saltiest Pizza (Feb 29, 2012)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Killing sperm same as killing babies.



Most men would be guilty of genocide.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Feb 29, 2012)

Colonel Awesome said:


> Most men would be guilty of genocide.



Women too think of all the sperm they have left out to die and eggs they have purged.


----------



## Mizura (Feb 29, 2012)

Well, I tend to view that a person could qualify as an individual with moral rights in one of the two circumstances:
1. The individual is able to define himself as a living individual, i.e. has a consciousness, sense of identity, etc. He can complain.
2. Other people are able to define him as an individual, different from others. This is the social definition.  Because we are social creatures partly defined by our relations to other people, I think this is perfectly acceptable as a definition.

Basically, when a baby is in the tummy, it doesn't really matter "who" that baby is. It could be an entirely different baby, it will be treated the same. However, after the baby is born and after some time has passed, that baby is no longer any baby, the parents are able to distinguish that baby among many others. So, until that baby acquires its own consciousness, the parents vouch for its individuality so to say.

In the same way, a person who's (temporarily?) in a coma had an individual's life before that, so is still an individual person when considered by the relationships he's had with other people.

Definition 1 takes precedence over Definition 2 though. If the baby turns out to have a fatal condition and will die before ever acquiring a consciousness, whereas providing it for life support for a few months would drain the parents financially, then I think it should be right to let it die. Otherwise though, for goodness' sake abort Before the baby is born.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Feb 29, 2012)

If you're going to kill babies, might as well eat 'em. Don't let it go to waste.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Feb 29, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Hitler mentioned 6 posts in.



Considering the nature of the OP, I think that's appropriate.


----------



## neko-sennin (Feb 29, 2012)

I would dare say the biggest difference between a fetus and a newborn baby is that the latter is no longer in the womb, and would therefore be easily put up for adoption if the parents lack the means or the integrity for the job themselves. 



♠Ace♠ said:


> Hitler mentioned 6 posts in.



Yeah, the Hitler Trend seems to be on an upswing lately.


----------



## g_core18 (Feb 29, 2012)

"experts say"


----------



## Ino Yamanaka (Feb 29, 2012)

He would say different bama


----------



## God (Feb 29, 2012)

This is only okay if allowing the baby to live would be a fate worse than ending its life.


----------



## dummy plug (Feb 29, 2012)

> a group of *medical ethicists* linked to Oxford University has argued.



riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight


----------



## Cyphon (Feb 29, 2012)

Their point is legit if the argument is about "knowing" you are alive or whatever. A baby knows no better than a fetus until a certain point.

Of course abortion is wrong for the fact that everyone outside of the fetus knows that if you are pregnant a human life is on the way. By stopping that you are essentially doing the same thing as killing someone. There is really no way to morally justify it.


----------



## Mider T (Feb 29, 2012)

g_core18 said:


> "experts say"



Another Shima Tetsuo on our hands


----------



## kanpyo7 (Feb 29, 2012)

Aren't a majority of severe defects detectable prior to birth anyways?

And smh, I'm sickened by their claims that this policy is a key part of a 'liberal society' as if liberalism didn't already get enough of an unjustified bad rep with this social issue.


----------



## .44 (Mar 1, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> Indeed.
> 
> You can't have an abortion with a steamroller.



...

Yes you can.



Mist Puppet said:


> If you're going to kill babies, might as well eat 'em. Don't let it go to waste.



Additionally, babies don't have any accumulated prions so they're safer to eat than adults.


----------



## PureWIN (Mar 1, 2012)

This is adding fuel to the fire of the abortion debate. The thought of killing a newborn baby is just...


----------



## impersonal (Mar 1, 2012)

Shima Tetsuo said:


> They are right, a baby and fetus are the same.
> 
> The ridiculous part is using it as an excuse to commit more murders, and not less.



Also killing a foetus and contraception are morally equivalent based on your own "counter-argument". Care to try and understand the reasoning, instead of posting religious nonsense?

In any case, these "medical ethicists" are mostly parroting Peter Singer, Australian moral philosopher of world fame, who has been saying that (and receiving death threats) for quite a while now:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."



One could object that "rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness" are all relatively vague terms, but I find it hard not to agree on the principle... The worse thing about killing a baby is not what you do to the baby, it's what you do to the parents. If the parents are fine with it, killing a baby is not good, but far from equivalent to killing a child.


----------



## Oil Can (Mar 1, 2012)

As a long time infanticide enthusiast I have to disagree.

Killing babies is waaaaay more fun.


----------



## Dejablue (Mar 1, 2012)

So whats stopping this from some day in the future turning into: "Your 5 year old is a financial burden? Kill it."


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 1, 2012)

I guess those guys have never heard of adoption, although I do agree that postnatal abortion should be an option in case of severe disabilities that hadn't been found earlier.



Dejablue said:


> So whats stopping this from some day in the future turning into: "Your 5 year old is a financial burden? Kill it."



The fact that 5 year olds can think, talk, have dreams and wishes. You know, the stuff that defines a person.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 1, 2012)

Also, if the baby turns out to be Jewish or looks really Jewish, I mean then you should definitely just hit it with a brick a few times.

Right, impersonal?


----------



## Dejablue (Mar 1, 2012)

The Jewish comment has flown over my head by a few miles.


----------



## Momoka (Mar 1, 2012)

Sad but true world


----------



## Roman (Mar 1, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Their point is legit if the argument is about "knowing" you are alive or whatever. A baby knows no better than a fetus until a certain point.
> 
> Of course abortion is wrong for the fact that everyone outside of the fetus knows that if you are pregnant *a human life is on the way*. By stopping that you are essentially doing the same thing as killing someone. There is really no way to morally justify it.



I see what you did there, tho you prolly don't.

On the whole, I agree with Mizura. There's a very obvious difference between a newborn and a fetus. The fetus's life is completely dependent on the mother's own body mechanisms. It does not have a consciousness of its own, it doesn't and will never acquire memories and experiences from the womb, it is connected to the mother's body in such a way that its own body functions rely on the mother's blood flow rather than its own.

A newborn, on the other hand, is able to see, hear, taste, touch, learn and grow. He/she has a consciousness, is able to make decisions albeit on a much, much smaller scale than adults. Hence why a baby has a consciousness, it is able to learn and grow from a mental and physical perspective. A Fetus can't do those things. Comparing a fetus to a newborn is therefore illogical.


----------



## Momoka (Mar 1, 2012)

You know, I really wonder about this... like what if all of your mothers decided to abort you. And I wonder if you'll be able to say these kinds of stuff.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 1, 2012)

Momoka said:


> You know, I really wonder about this... like what if all of your mothers decided to abort you. And I wonder if you'll be able to say these kinds of stuff.



I'm a grown man, I can't be aborted.

If you're gonna regurgitate tired, overused stock arguments at least get the tense right.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 1, 2012)

> They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if  it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for  example citing that ?only the 64 per cent of Down?s syndrome cases? in  Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
> 
> Once such children were born there was ?no choice for the parents but to keep the child?, they wrote.
> 
> ?To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family  and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for  their care.?





Coteaz said:


> Agree wholeheartedly with this part. Keeping severely disabled (mentally or physically) infants alive is pointless, as they will never accomplish anything on their own and will continue to be an economic and emotional drain on their families throughout their lifespans.



Same, just end their miserable lives before they can burden themselves and others. We waste so much money on those who were born ill when we could use that money to help those who actually have established themselves in the world and need medical assistance. 

Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it. Many animals will gladly throw a newborn out of the nest if they realize there is something wrong with it, and for good reason too it would be a waste to feed it when there are other babies to be helped.


----------



## E (Mar 1, 2012)

oh shit, i don't what i'd do if these experts didn't make this groudbreaking discovery

thank you experts for shedding light on this


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 1, 2012)

Ahhhh ... "experts". 

You can lend validity to any argument by throwing that word around.


----------



## PDQ (Mar 1, 2012)

"Experts say" Of course, an expertise in ethical philosophy has different level of validation than, say, expertise in the field of mathematics.

Is killing a baby fresh out of the womb different from aborting it few hours earlier when it was in it?  Not really.  But compared to when it was an embryo months ago in gestation?

There's so many things that compose a human that develop at different times.  It's much more continuous and gradual than a sudden leap from nothing to fully developed human.  There's

A heart beat
Brain activity
Sentience
sapience
self-awareness
rationality
ability to make moral decisions
individuality
feeling pain
being recognizable
Each poses a different nuance to the question of "death".  If a human being is clinically dead when they have no heartbeat, is an embryo without a heartbeat even alive to be killed?  Even if it's alive, does it matter more than say, a dog, in terms of deserving rights(afterall dogs have hearts)?  Why are humans afforded a right to life that no other living being gets?  Answering that tells us at what stage does it matter.


----------



## skins (Mar 1, 2012)

'Abort' means to end something that is in process, but not complete. A gestation period being ended by abortion is an abortion.

Killing a newborn baby is euthenasia, not abortion. It is against the law in pretty much every single country around the world to abort a baby beyond 26 weeks of gestation because a baby is nearly *naturally* viable at that point (unless the mother's life is very much at risk of death if the pregnancy were to go on much longer, which accounts for .001% of abortions) Anyone who has actually gone and debated and researched abortion would know that much.

People argue that because technology advances, we can save premature babies earlier. But it's not a natural process. Just as allowing a severely deformed or ill baby to survive can, in its essentials, be seen on an instinctual level as against nature.

But humans are not animals in that our intelligence has grown to the point that we feel empathy for living creatures, no matter how deformed, especially if they have come from inside us.

Infantside is something I cannot agree with in a first world country where birth control and abortion is readily available and accessable at a cheap price, and where a country teaches proper sex education in its schools instead of the abstinence only bullshit that goes on. Too bad some first world countries do not and do more harm than good.

So it really doesn't surprise me that an article such as this has shown up.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Same, just end their miserable lives before they can burden themselves and others. We waste so much money on those who were born ill when we could use that money to help those who actually have established themselves in the world and need medical assistance.



First, how do you define a "miserable life"?  Your value of their life may not equal their value of their life.  Their dependence is not a reason to murder - children are all dependent and most could not survive without an adult.  Yet they can enjoy life.



Bioness said:


> Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it.



Just a question: do you believe in social programs?



Bioness said:


> Many animals will gladly throw a newborn out of the nest if they realize there is something wrong with it, and for good reason too it would be a waste to feed it when there are other babies to be helped.



But the point of living in a civilized society is to not act like animals - thus we don't kill for mates, we don't rape (without being punished), murder for food or mark our territory with our own urine.  Defending something because "that's what animals do" is a horrible argument for a person who lives in a civilized society.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Just a question: do you believe in social programs?



Just a question: Do you know the difference between a sentient and a non-sentient being?


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 1, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Just a question: Do you know the difference between a sentient and a non-sentient being?


Just a question:  Do you know the difference between a sapient and sentient being?


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Just a question: Do you know the difference between a sentient and a non-sentient being?



Yes, I do.  Now what does that have to do with killing children who've already been born?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Yes, I do.  Now what does that have to do with killing children who've already been born?



Being born doesn't make you sentient. Social programs are for sentient beings 99% of the time.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Being born doesn't make you sentient. Social programs are for sentient beings 99% of the time.



99%?  I think you're overstating things and you also didn't read the context of my reply.  This is what bioness said:

*Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it*.

Hence the point about social programs.

Secondly, you're missing the big point - this article is essentially admitting that pro-lifers have won the logical argument about life so now our opponents are simply openly advocating murder.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2012)

> Secondly, you're missing the big point - this article is essentially admitting that pro-lifers have won the logical argument about life so now our opponents are simply openly advocating murder.



No, it hasn't. Considering that the ethicists in question not only used deceptive wording and terminology, but completely ignored aspects of biology and its relevance to the matter of abortion to begin with. Disregarding that most countries prohibit abortion in the third trimester where the fetus is viable, making their first point and main point fall apart, most abortions occur in the first trimester; well before viability and any sentience can be claimed. What's more is that has been mentioned before, is "abortion" is the termination of a process, in this case, gestation, and if a baby is born that means that the process of gestation is complete. Abortions are not at all the same as infanticide for that simple matter. I read it, and it was in the end deceptive BS, they say they aren't trying to change minds, but they made their intent far too transparent.

But hilariously enough, this is just an emotional argument on your part and theirs.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Mar 1, 2012)

I got mix feelings about killing a severely disabled child, the logical choice would be yes  since they wont be able to provide for themselves in anyway they just become a burden of medical bills (depending on case) and their family as if the parents die someone else has to take over.

The other side of the coin is everyone should have a chance.


----------



## Roman (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dude......

Since when is it that we're in 100% agreement?



Bioness said:


> Same, just end their miserable lives before they can burden themselves and others. We waste so much money on those who were born ill when we could use that money to help those who actually have established themselves in the world and need medical assistance.



People born with deformities of some kind are still capable contributing much to society and are no less human than anyone else. Some people may be born a certain way, but the fact remains that we're all human beings who're capable of something. All it takes is accepting the way they are and allow them to grow however they see fit, helping them as much as possible along the way. There are people like Stephen Hawking who can't even go to the toilet by themselves, but have contributed much more to society than all the members here on NF together. How can we deny anyone life on the grounds that they're physically not capable? We cannot know what a baby can do without giving him/her a chance.



Bioness said:


> Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it. Many animals will gladly throw a newborn out of the nest if they realize there is something wrong with it, and for good reason too it would be a waste to feed it when there are other babies to be helped.



But we're not animals, we're human beings. We help each other because we're social creatures, we're not barbaric people who discard anyone who can't live without the assistance of others. One can even argue no human can survive without another. The loneliness would be too much to bear. As someone mentioned earlier, we don't live in Frank Miller's Sparta.


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 1, 2012)

Yoko Takeo said:


> But we're not animals, we're human beings. We help each other because we're social creatures, we're not barbaric people who discard anyone who can't live without the assistance of others.* One can even argue no human can survive without another. The loneliness would be too much to bear. *As someone mentioned earlier, we don't live in Frank Miller's Sparta.


Tell that to hermits.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

Yoko Takeo said:


> Dude......
> 
> Since when is it that we're in 100% agreement?



Are we up to 5% yet?



Seto Kaiba said:


> No, it hasn't. Considering that the ethicists in question not only used deceptive wording and terminology, but completely ignored aspects of biology and its relevance to the matter of abortion to begin with. Disregarding that most countries prohibit abortion in the third trimester where the fetus is viable, making their first point and main point fall apart, most abortions occur in the first trimester; well before viability and any sentience can be claimed. What's more is that has been mentioned before, is "abortion" is the termination of a process, in this case, gestation, and if a baby is born that means that the process of gestation is complete. Abortions are not at all the same as infanticide for that simple matter. I read it, and it was in the end deceptive BS, they say they aren't trying to change minds, but they made their intent far too transparent.
> 
> But hilariously enough, this is just an emotional argument on your part and theirs.



I don't remember advocating their point, so while their argument could be called emotional what does that have to do with my own?

Secondly, you're now making a new standard for killing that didn't exist before - sentience, when before the question was whether we're ending a human life or just cutting off some tissue.  I personally don't think we should be killing people based off of sentience but on whether or not their actions deserve death.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 1, 2012)

Yoko Takeo said:


> On the whole, I agree with Mizura. There's a very obvious difference between a newborn and a fetus.


The only difference is that one is inside its mom and the other is not. This is not relevant. If I put you back inside your mom (try not to imagine this, for your own sake), you're still the same human being. You're just locked inside your mom.


Yoko Takeo said:


> The fetus's life is completely dependent on the mother's own body mechanisms.


Not nearing the end of pregnancy. Proof being the very high risk of birth around 9months.



Yoko Takeo said:


> It does not have a consciousness of its own


How do you know?



Yoko Takeo said:


> it doesn't and will never acquire memories and experiences from the womb,


How do you know? Do you remember stuff from your first year after birth?



Yoko Takeo said:


> A newborn, on the other hand, is able to see, hear, taste, touch, learn and grow.


A fetus can hear, taste, touch, learn and grow.


Yoko Takeo said:


> He/she [the newborn] has a consciousness


How do you know?


Yoko Takeo said:


> [The newborn] is able to make decisions albeit on a much, much smaller scale than adults.


A fetus can "decide" to kick his mom's insides, too.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> I don't remember advocating their point, so while their argument could be called emotional what does that have to do with my own?



"Our opponents are simply advocating murder".



> Secondly, you're now making a new standard for killing that didn't exist before - sentience, when before the question was whether we're ending a human life or just cutting off some tissue.



That standard has always been there. Considering most abortions occur well before the embryo or fetus is viable, that answer would be a resounding "no". 



> I personally don't think we should be killing people based off of sentience but on whether or not their actions deserve death.



Well, I think it depends entirely on the situation at hand. If a family has someone that's basically a vegetable with no hoping of bouncing back, the option should be available to them to take them off their life support. If the person had made explicit instructions to be taken off life support in such a case, then most definitely. That's just one example though.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

impersonal said:


> The only difference is that one is inside its mom and the other is not. This is not relevant. If I put you back inside your mom (try not to imagine this, for your own sake), you're still the same human being. You're just locked inside your mom.
> 
> Not nearing the end of pregnancy. Proof being the very high risk of birth around 9months.
> 
> ...



All good reasons to end the heinous institution of abortion.  It is a moral stain on the civilized world.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:
			
		

> Secondly, you're missing the big point - this article is essentially admitting that pro-lifers have won the logical argument about life so now our opponents are simply openly advocating murder.


Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers face interesting dilemmas around the edges. The pro-life stance, which is an absolutely religious stance, fails to explain when the soul enters the body: on the instant that the spermatozoid touches the egg? After the "new human life" has 2 cells? 4 cells? Is a mere fertilized egg as valuable as a 20 years old person, and if it is, why don't they take more precautions to avoid all the deaths that occur during the first few days after conception (consider the effects of the contraceptive pill)? If you consider that personhood begins at conception, you have to act like it is the case, and this is absurd. And if you're not religious, none of this makes any sense whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the pro-choice stance, which is the non-religious stance, has to define exactly which objective criteria are acceptable to determine the beginning of personhood. And many of these criteria cannot receive an absolute "yes" or "no" answer (consider: self-consciousness, sentience, feeling, rationality, autonomy...) but rather appear progressively*. This leads to the difficult problem of exactly when a "human life" becomes a person : there is no strict delimitation. If you consider that personhood is defined by a person's characteristics, rather than a supernatural force, then you have to accept that it is not absolute.

*Those criteria that accept an absolute answer are the really stupid ones, eg. "the fetus is 3 months old" or "I can see the fetus' genitals, it's now a full-fledged person!" or "it's out of the womb, it's a person". The criteria I proposed (self-consciousness, sentience...) allow for answers ranging anywhere from a few days after conception to potentially never for some people, depending on how strict you are.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Mar 1, 2012)

ok first I want to say this, this article makes me mad, and some of the responses just make me madder, this is not abortion, it is infanticide, abortion is an useful tool to prevent stress in a future life and in a currently living one. Infanticide is just a form of genocide, this is a perversion. 




Cubey said:


> This is only okay if allowing the baby to live would be a fate worse than ending its life.


agreed, is the only way I can even consider this demented point of view 



Saufsoldat said:


> The fact that 5 year olds can think, talk, have dreams and wishes. You know, the stuff that defines a person.


so we go by your definition of what being a person is 


> Being born doesn't make you sentient. Social programs are for sentient beings 99% of the time.


because a baby can't think, it can communicate, and what am I thinking, they can't even desire the basic needs like food, you weren't raised by humans were you?


Saufsoldat said:


> I'm a grown man, I can't be aborted.


a person in coma can't think, talk, dream, and as hell I'm sure, they can't have wishes, they should be kill them. seriously this is the most conceited argument on this whole thread.



Bioness said:


> Same, *just end their miserable lives* before they can burden themselves and others. We waste so much money on those who were born ill when we could use that money to help those who actually have established themselves in the world and need medical assistance.


and just by whom definition should we go, surely not by yours right? I would wonder what would make it so right? or any other for that matter



> Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it. Many animals will gladly throw a newborn out of the nest if they realize there is something wrong with it, and for good reason too it would be a waste to feed it when there are other babies to be helped.


we should've kill Stephen Hawking them the poor wretch has a Motor neurone disease, he can't even move. I'm sure he hasn't contributed nothing to this universe, nope nothing at all 


baconbits said:


> Yes, I do.  Now what does that have to do with killing children who've already been born?


 look above, his logic is undeniable 


> I got mix feelings about killing a severely disabled child, the logical choice would be yes since they wont be able to provide for themselves in anyway they just become a burden of medical bills (depending on case) and their family as if the parents die someone else has to take over.
> 
> The other side of the coin is everyone should have a chance.


apparently we haven't come that far, we just happen to be much more conceited


----------



## Distance (Mar 1, 2012)

Two academics release an article to argue about something that is controversial, and people get angry about it? How else is the issue going to be tackled if we don't get different opinions on the matter?


----------



## impersonal (Mar 1, 2012)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> Infanticide is just a form of genocide


What?


Blackfeather Dragon said:


> so we go by your definition of what being a person is


Well, if you know of an objective, universally accepted definition, I will be glad to hear it. In the meantime, some people think that a 1 day old fetus is a person and that people who take the pill, or worse the morning after pill, deserve capital punishment. But other people think that a 4 years old kid is still fair game.

I'd say both are excessive, but as a society, you have to take all points of view into account in order to find a reasonable consensus, which is where the law will step in and say _"no, you can't do that. The preliminaries/intercourse/sperm/egg/fetus/baby/kid/teenager/adult/senior is too much of a person now"._

In Europe, for example, the consensus is most of the time around 12 weeks after conception. Some allow more, some less. The idea that birth constitute an absolute limit is nonsense, just like the idea that a fertilized egg is a person.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 1, 2012)

We should definitely look at killing retards.


----------



## takada (Mar 1, 2012)

Coteaz said:


> Agree wholeheartedly with this part. Keeping severely disabled (mentally or physically) infants alive is pointless, as they will never accomplish anything on their own and will continue to be an economic and emotional drain on their families throughout their lifespans.



I agree with this.  Doctors can usually detect this before infants are born with sonograms [especially since there's 4D ultrasound these days].  It's up to the parent to decide if they want to go through with the child birthing process or if they decide they don't want to keep it.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 1, 2012)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> abortion is an useful tool to prevent stress in a future life and in a currently living one. Infanticide is just a form of genocide, this is a perversion.



So if I kill a baby or for that matter an adult and say it was to prevent stress in a future life and in a currently living one that makes it okay?


----------



## Tiger (Mar 1, 2012)

I lol'd at "experts".


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Both pro-lifers and pro-choicers face interesting dilemmas around the edges. The pro-life stance, which is an absolutely religious stance, fails to explain when the soul enters the body: on the instant that the spermatozoid touches the egg? After the "new human life" has 2 cells? 4 cells? Is a mere fertilized egg as valuable as a 20 years old person, and if it is, why don't they take more precautions to avoid all the deaths that occur during the first few days after conception (consider the effects of the contraceptive pill)? If you consider that personhood begins at conception, you have to act like it is the case, and this is absurd. And if you're not religious, none of this makes any sense whatsoever.



You don't have to be religious to make that point.  Life at some point must begin.  We must make some logical argument where life begins and the only logical point is conception.



impersonal said:


> Meanwhile, the pro-choice stance, which is the non-religious stance, has to define exactly which objective criteria are acceptable to determine the beginning of personhood. And many of these criteria cannot receive an absolute "yes" or "no" answer (consider: self-consciousness, sentience, feeling, rationality, autonomy...) but rather appear progressively*. This leads to the difficult problem of exactly when a "human life" becomes a person : there is no strict delimitation. If you consider that personhood is defined by a person's characteristics, rather than a supernatural force, then you have to accept that it is not absolute.
> 
> *Those criteria that accept an absolute answer are the really stupid ones, eg. "the fetus is 3 months old" or "I can see the fetus' genitals, it's now a full-fledged person!" or "it's out of the womb, it's a person". The criteria I proposed (self-consciousness, sentience...) allow for answers ranging anywhere from a few days after conception to potentially never for some people, depending on how strict you are.



Which means essentially that you have no position and thus have in effect fled the debate.  The question of when life begins is really teh only question that matters.  Once we have a life then ending it is killing it.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2012)

> You don't have to be religious to make that point. Life at some point must begin. We must make some logical argument where life begins and the only logical point is conception.



No it isn't. There's no logical basis for that at all, as nothing that is even barely necessary for viability hasn't even developed yet. That's an entirely religious point, or at least a "faith-based" one.


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 1, 2012)

Law said:


> I lol'd at "experts".


Nowadays, everybody seems to be an expert in something


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Mar 1, 2012)

impersonal said:


> What?


couldn't be more clear if I tried, I define genocide as the mass murdering of innocent humans, babies=humans, the math is simple.



> Well, if you know of an objective, universally accepted definition, I will be glad to hear it. In the meantime, some people think that a 1 day old fetus is a person and that people who take the pill, or worse the morning after pill, deserve capital punishment. But other people think that a 4 years old kid is still fair game.


I don't procure to know something, but I try to be as logical as possible, and I try to go for whats best for the situation at hand, for example lets do what was probably a common case here in the U.S. in the early eighties, late seventies: 
first trimester mother, she is under age or relatively young, has no job, no skills, is probably a high school drop out and lives in the Bronx or in Chicago, should she have a baby, her choice, should she have the option of terminate the pregnancy should she wanted to, yes and all the resources available to. 

why? well because the offspring of poor mothers (especially uneducated ones) have a higher likely to become criminals, and have overall a worse childhood. Now should this be a reason to have women filling this criteria get an abortion? No. Should they  have the option to do it if they wanted to? Yes.


> In Europe, for example, the consensus is most of the time around 12 weeks after conception. Some allow more, some less. *The idea that birth constitute an absolute limit is nonsense*, just like the idea that a fertilized egg is a person.


birth should constitute an absolute limit (unless it is a severe case, you can read more below) because at that point we have a living person, a human. There is a reason we are not animals. 




Cyphon said:


> So if I kill a baby or for that matter an adult and say it was to prevent stress in a future life and in a currently living one that makes it okay?


I see abortion as the sudden end of to-be life, I'm pro choice so I defend abortion, but once the fetus has been born and is therefore a sentient being, unless living would be a fate worse than dead (as in really sick and would die anyways) other wise known as euthanasia, the baby should be allowed to live as the being is already living, so to answer your question no, because the baby is already living and has all of the characteristic that makes us human.


----------



## The Fireball Kid (Mar 1, 2012)

I don't understand why people get so upset by it. Fetuses don't have dreams, feelings, emotions, or memories. We're not going up to someone with a family, emotions, a life. It's a bunch of cells being destroyed.

The life of an established human should matter more than something that will _become_ a human.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 1, 2012)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> so we go by your definition of what being a person is



By all means, how do you define a person?



> because a baby can't think, it can communicate,



We're talking right after birth, don't stretch the definition of the word "baby" to suit your own needs.



> and what am I thinking, they can't even desire the basic needs like food, you weren't raised by humans were you?



I thought I had clarified enough. By dreams and wishes, I don't refer to either experiencing a REM phase while sleeping or having instincts, both of those are already present in fetuses, so the point is moot.

I was referring to the ability to have plans for the future. You know, having experiences and interacting with them on an abstract level.



> a person in coma can't think, talk, dream, and as hell I'm sure, they can't have wishes, they should be kill them. seriously this is the most conceited argument on this whole thread.



And if there's no realistic chance of them waking up, my stance is the same as it is for a severely disabled newborn.

What you're of course doing here is being a complete moron by twisting my argument and putting words in my mouth. At no point did I argue that they *should* be aborted, whether it's before or after birth. All I said is that it should be an option.

If I'm in a coma and there's no realistic chance for me to wake up, then why should my family or society be forced to pay and keep my corpse alive? That's a pointless waste of everyone's time and emotional well-being.

If a baby comes out of its mother's womb and it's evident that the baby has a severe disability, that will render it dependent on other people's time and money for the rest of its life, then the parents should be allowed to make the call and have it killed.

Again, so you don't misrepresent me this time: 

Parents should be allowed to make a decision does not mean that parents should make that decision. It's up to them whether or not they want to invest time and money in a child that may never be able to appreciate it.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No it isn't. There's no logical basis for that at all, as nothing that is even barely necessary for viability hasn't even developed yet. That's an entirely religious point, or at least a "faith-based" one.



Your statement does not equal an argument.  All you've done is make a pronouncement, yet you've never given a single reason why we should believe you.

Its illogical to pretend that coming out of the mother makes you alive, since there is literally no difference between a live child and a child in the womb for nine months except for where they are.

It makes on sense to make an argument based on sentience since sentience is so incremental and hard to define.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 1, 2012)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> couldn't be more clear if I tried, I define genocide as the mass murdering of innocent humans, babies=humans, the math is simple.



Well, that's nice, but you don't get to define words that already have an agreed-upon definition.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Your statement does not equal an argument.  All you've done is make a pronouncement, yet you've never given a single reason why we should believe you.



Considering you've made no case for why we should consider life to start at contraception, I'm finding this nothing short of hilarious. 



> Its illogical to pretend that coming out of the mother makes you alive, since there is literally no difference between a live child and a child in the womb for nine months except for where they are.



There's a massive difference. A zygote, embryo, fetus, merely have the potential to become a human child. Two are not viable at all, and the latter only so at the third trimester. 



> It makes on sense to make an argument based on sentience since sentience is so incremental and hard to define.



A zygote clearly is not sentient. It's simply a mass of cells, an animal embryo is indistinguishable from that of other related species and often no bigger than the palm of your hand. The argument that life starts at contraception is ludicrous, and again, faith-based if not religiously based.


----------



## Momoka (Mar 1, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> I'm a grown man, I can't be aborted.
> 
> If you're gonna regurgitate tired, overused stock arguments at least get the tense right.



No, seriously, what 




I can't believe that your mother didn't abort you before.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

The Fireball Kid said:


> I don't understand why people get so upset by it. Fetuses don't have dreams, feelings, emotions, or memories. We're not going up to someone with a family, emotions, a life. It's a bunch of cells being destroyed.
> 
> The life of an established human should matter more than something that will _become_ a human.



The question is at what point does it become a human?  This fetus is much more than a bunch of cells, it has a father and mother.  It has its own unique DNA and development.

If I broke down your argument it is essentially this: when someone matters to other people it is then alive.  I don't think this argument is logically valid.  If I'm misstating it let me know.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 1, 2012)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> but once the fetus has been born and is therefore a sentient being,



Depends on who is defining sentient and if you can prove that is the point they became sentient.

In any case your answer didn't have anything to do with your original point. 

You were saying abortion is okay because it can prevent stress. So if you get annoying and stress me out it is okay if I kill you by your logic because I am simply preventing stress.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> The question is at what point does it become a human?  This fetus is much more than a bunch of cells, it has a father and mother.  It has its own unique DNA and development.
> 
> If I broke down your argument it is essentially this: when someone matters to other people it is then alive.  I don't think this argument is logically valid.  If I'm misstating it let me know.



It's clear you're misstating it to your convenience.


----------



## SaskeKun (Mar 1, 2012)

haha "experts"
Both is wrong. Babies have also the right to live, doesn't matter if they are already born or not. It's not their fault when the parents don't have the possibilites to raise them, are too young or whatever


----------



## Huey Freeman (Mar 1, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Depends on who is defining sentient and if you can prove that is the point they became sentient.
> 
> In any case your answer didn't have anything to do with your original point.
> 
> You were saying abortion is okay because it can prevent stress. So if you get annoying and stress me out it is okay if I kill you by your logic because I am simply preventing stress.



I read that as teens who have kids that dont know what they doing or have no interest in raising kids. 
In either case then I agree if your a teen and you dont want the kid then go deal with what you got to deal with.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 1, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Considering you've made no case for why we should consider life to start at contraception, I'm finding this nothing short of hilarious.



The rest of the post you quoted made that argument.  Don't you find it dishonest to make an accusation that is only viable because you answered before I could get to my point?



Seto Kaiba said:


> There's a massive difference. A zygote, embryo, fetus, merely have the potential to become a human child. Two are not viable at all, and the latter only so at the third trimester.



You argue as if you didn't read my point at all.  This is what you were supposed to be responding to:



> Its illogical to pretend that coming out of the mother makes you alive, since there is literally no difference between a live child and a child in the womb for nine months except for where they are.



So why then are you refering to a zygote?  You're not answering my point at all.  The point is that while in the womb the child is still a viable human being that has just as much a right to life as the child that is outside of the womb.  To define life as the place where you live is illogical.



Seto Kaiba said:


> A zygote clearly is not sentient. It's simply a mass of cells, an animal embryo is indistinguishable from that of other related species and often no bigger than the palm of your hand. The argument that life starts at contraception is ludicrous, and again, faith-based if not religiously based.



I never made an argument based on sentience, in fact I argued that we should not use such arguments, so what are you really debating?  The embryo's size should not be an argument that any intelligent person should use.  Is Yao Ming more human than Earl Boykins (notoriously short guard in the NBA)?  What you've done is assemble a collection of useless facts, mixed them with aggression and call it an argument.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 1, 2012)

Huey Freeman said:


> I read that as teens who have kids that dont know what they doing or have no interest in raising kids.



He said abortion was an effective tool because it prevents stress. That was basically what it boiled down to. 

If we used that as an argument we could use that to defend rapists, murderers, thieves etc.....


----------



## Huey Freeman (Mar 1, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> He said abortion was an effective tool because it prevents stress. That was basically what it boiled down to.
> 
> If we used that as an argument we could use that to defend rapists, murderers, thieves etc.....



Yeah I see the point I just inferred he meant life changing stress of parenthood for those surprise pregnancies.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Mar 1, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> He said abortion was an effective tool because it prevents stress. That was basically what it boiled down to.
> 
> If we used that as an argument we could use that to defend rapists, murderers, thieves etc.....


oh come on, now we are what? the supreme court of justice debating free speech, anyways I should be more specific then. I meant in the how having a child while living in Compton L.A. can cause you stress or being poor /or dropout w/o a job can cause you stress, or all this things that can lead you and the children to have miserable lives, not in that kinds of ways    



Huey Freeman said:


> Yeah I see the point I just inferred he meant life changing stress of parenthood for those surprise pregnancies.


thank you



Saufsoldat said:


> Well, that's nice, but you don't get to define words that already have an agreed-upon definition.


you don't know what human is do you, well I imagine you probably being alien and what not. lets clarify for you:



			
				hu?man said:
			
		

> [hyoo-muhn or, often, yoo‐] Show IPA
> adjective
> 1.
> of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or having the nature of people: human frailty.
> ...





> human being
> 
> noun
> 1.
> ...


I don't see a difference here between a human an a baby, heck baby is just a way to call a human new born the same way we call dogs new born puppies, they as human as I (and you ) because they belong to the same species as us, namely homo sapiens  


Saufsoldat said:


> By all means, how do you define a person?


something capable of feeling empathy for starters 


> We're talking right after birth, don't stretch the definition of the word "baby" to suit your own needs.


to my medical knowledge fetus out of the womb is called a baby or an infant, if you have a better one please feel free to share it.





> I thought I had clarified enough. By dreams and wishes, I don't refer to either experiencing a REM phase while sleeping or having instincts, both of those are already present in fetuses, so the point is moot.


1.) babies are much more developed than fetuses, I thought that much was obvious 2.) "experiencing a REM phase"  dreams are pretty much that in all humans.





> I was referring to the ability to have plans for the future. You know, having experiences and interacting with them on an abstract level.


that only come with experience of the outside world, the baby is fully capable of doing that and unlike a fetus, it is capable of doing just that without depending of his mother body, he would need assistance but for that there is a nice option called adoption 





> And if there's no realistic chance of them waking up, my stance is the same as it is for a severely disabled newborn.
> 
> What you're of course doing here is being a complete moron by twisting my argument and putting words in my mouth. At no point did I argue that they *should* be aborted, whether it's before or after birth. All I said is that it should be an option.


no I simply looked at your arguments and the contradictions and vagueness within them 



> If I'm in a coma and there's no realistic chance for me to wake up, then why should my family or society be forced to pay and keep my corpse alive? That's a pointless waste of everyone's time and emotional well-being.
> 
> If a baby comes out of its mother's womb and it's evident that the baby has a severe disability, that will render it dependent on other people's time and money for the rest of its life, then the parents should be allowed to make the call and have it killed.


after it has been born? No. 





> Again, so you don't misrepresent me this time:
> 
> Parents should be allowed to make a decision does not mean that parents should make that decision. It's up to them whether or not they want to invest time and money in a child that may never be able to appreciate it.


if they had such insecurities, they should've never had a child or should aborted one when they had the chance parenthood is a decision between to consenting adults, to bring a new life, if they've have suddenly decide that they don't want a baby once is born, instead of killing it they should give it up for adoption.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 1, 2012)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> something capable of feeling empathy for starters



Okay, so you don't consider fetuses, babies and psychopaths persons.



> to my medical knowledge fetus out of the womb is called a baby or an infant, if you have a better one please feel free to share it.



 That was not the point. I say "a baby right after birth" and am therefore referring only to babies that have very recently been born. You take up the word "baby" and then go on to include all definitions of the word, which is frankly retarded and derails the debate by misrepresenting my point.



> 1.) babies are much more developed than fetuses, I thought that much was obvious



Do explain how much a fetus developes in the few hours that it takes for it to exit the womb.



> 2.) "experiencing a REM phase"  dreams are pretty much that in all humans.



I was pointing out that I never referred to that kind of dreams, good to know you ignored it.



> that only come with experience of the outside world, the baby is fully capable of doing that



No, it isn't. Newborn babies function on an instinctive level. If you would like to contest that established fact, feel free to tell us a little about how it was for you to experience birth. You should have memories of it, if your brain was as developed as you claim it is in newborns.



> and unlike a fetus, it is capable of doing just that without depending of his mother body, he would need assistance but for that there is a nice option called adoption



Which I already pointed out in my first post. Again you intentionally misrepresent my arguments.



> no I simply looked at your arguments and the contradictions and vagueness within them



You did no such thing. You said some bullshit about what "should" be done when all I ever argued is what should be allowed.



> after it has been born? No.



Contradicting me does not constitute an argument, try again.



> if they had such insecurities, they should've never had a child or should aborted one when they had the chance parenthood is a decision between to consenting adults, to bring a new life, if they've have suddenly decide that they don't want a baby once is born, instead of killing it they should give it up for adoption.



They never consented to having a severely disabled child that will never accomplish anything with its life ever. Forcing it upon them is ridiculous and harmful to both the parents and society as a whole.

Adoption just shifts the responsibility from the parents to society as a whole. Why should my tax money pay to keep a vegetable alive?


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Mar 1, 2012)

Let's be honest, the whole is a fetus a baby argument is just a way to make abortion socially justifiable. If it didn't exist then the conclusion that the guys make in this article would be valid.



Who are people trying to fool?


----------



## Dejablue (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> 99%?  I think you're overstating things and you also didn't read the context of my reply.  This is what bioness said:
> 
> *Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it*.
> 
> ...




Aren't all regular infants unable to fend for themselves until  they reach a certain age quite a few years into the future?  If a put my baby down on the floor and leave it for a week. When I come back that baby is dead.  I can leave a toddler alone and I guess I should expect it to survive on its own.  Or a 10 year old for that matter. And even then yeah a 10 year old kid probably knows how to survive. But _can_ it?  Is a child not considered a human until it can contribute to society?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Mar 1, 2012)

Problem for them: Too many people think babies are cute. 

Therefore no one will ever agree with this. Which is good, because this concept is creepy.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Mar 1, 2012)

Dejablue said:


> Aren't all regular infants unable to fend for themselves until  they reach a certain age quite a few years into the future?  If a put my baby down on the floor and leave it for a week. When I come back that baby is dead.  I can leave a toddler alone and I guess I should expect it to survive on its own.  Or a 10 year old for that matter. And even then yeah a 10 year old kid probably knows how to survive. But _can_ it?  Is a child not considered a human until it can contribute to society?



Funny enough, humans are characterized by their birthing of helpless children in relation to other primates.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> The rest of the post you quoted made that argument.  Don't you find it dishonest to make an accusation that is only viable because you answered before I could get to my point?



It didn't at all, and that response was made in regards to that. You've made no argument for your belief that life begins at contraception, which is entirely faith-based and has no logical standing.



> You argue as if you didn't read my point at all.  This is what you were supposed to be responding to:
> 
> 
> 
> So why then are you refering to a zygote?  You're not answering my point at all.  The point is that while in the womb the child is still a viable human being that has just as much a right to life as the child that is outside of the womb.  To define life as the place where you live is illogical.



That was your response, and you scratching your head over it only proves your lack of understanding on the basics of human biology. A zygote is not a child, and it is definitely not viable. An embryo is not viable, and a fetus is only viable at the third trimester. There is a clear difference between those and a baby that is the end product of the gestational period.



> I never made an argument based on sentience, in fact I argued that we should not use such arguments, so what are you really debating?  The embryo's size should not be an argument that any intelligent person should use.  Is Yao Ming more human than Earl Boykins (notoriously short guard in the NBA)?  What you've done is assemble a collection of useless facts, mixed them with aggression and call it an argument.



Your entire point hinges on the concept of sentience. The embryo's size is a valid point of its viability and development, its idiotic to compare to the heights of people that actually exist. The stages of development during gestation are hardly useless facts, as they are and have been entirely relevant to the abortion debate. Yet you like the ethicists fail to understand that.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Mar 1, 2012)

> Okay, so you don't consider fetuses, babies and psychopaths persons.


and where did I say that it was the absolute definition, and I'll like to see that research that says that fetuses (the ones that is generally agree upon by science and legality that is _ok_ to abort) have the capability to feel empathy





> That was not the point. I say "a baby right after birth" and am therefore referring only to babies that have very recently been born. You take up the word "baby" and then go on to include all definitions of the word, which is frankly retarded and derails the debate by misrepresenting my point.


and a baby a minute onto this world and minute before his first step is still a baby, only difference is that he has grown and that he may have improved his already existing capability while adding experience but that process is called growing and is present on humans up to age 25, how dumb can you be?





> Do explain how much a fetus developes in the few hours that it takes for it to exit the womb.


you don't know about human babies do you? simply put for starters is not with in his mother, it does not depend on her no longer to breath, it has everything that he needs to survive with relatively less care, etc. god sake I'd thought you'll know this kind of stuff. 





> I was pointing out that I never referred to that kind of dreams, good to know you ignored it.


and if you read the part before that you'll would've understood that the other kind of dreams is something that you gain by experiencing the outside word, if a human is from the moment he is born taken into a prison and never let to go outside or to hear from out side and his only contact is just someone giving him food, would he be less human because he never knew and therefore couldn't aspire?


> No, it isn't. Newborn babies function on an instinctive level. If you would like to contest that established fact, feel free to tell us a little about how it was for you to experience birth. You should have memories of it, if your brain was as developed as you claim it is in newborns.


and so do humans it just happen to have be much more complicated because of society, and the experiences we'd had and I like how you add something that has nothing to do, namely memory, to the case.





> Which I already pointed out in my first post. Again you intentionally misrepresent my arguments.


you didn't read what you posted, did you?





> Contradicting me does not constitute an argument, try again.


is funny I purposely let be like that while pretty much arguing against it in both the above and below statement.  


> You did no such thing. You said some bullshit about what "should" be done when all I ever argued is what should be allowed.


few things in the world aren't allowed, murder of an infant is one, it is like that for a reason you should look up why.





> They never consented to having a severely disabled child that will never accomplish anything with its life ever. Forcing it upon them is ridiculous and harmful to both the parents and society as a whole.


 a name: Stephen hawking. a word: technology, I'll let you figure out the rest as I have no time for this.


Saufsoldat said:


> Adoption just shifts the responsibility from the parents to society as a whole. Why should my tax money pay to keep a vegetable alive?



, you have a lack of understanding of what adoption is don't you. that being said, I'm going to repeat this word again:technology


----------



## rohanshah1 (Mar 1, 2012)

Argue however much you want to, but in the end there will be no common right answer for every situation. On abortion, I believe people have the right to abort a child if they feel they have to because its their body. And as long as its their body we should not and do not have the right to interfere. 
On the article: Killing full born babies vs fetus is a whole different thing. There are many factor you have to consider before even making a statement like that.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Mar 1, 2012)

Saufsoldat said:


> Adoption just shifts the responsibility from the parents to society as a whole. Why should my tax money pay to keep a vegetable alive?



I must have missed something in this debate. 

How is an adopted person a vegetable?


----------



## Coteaz (Mar 1, 2012)

Shinigami Perv said:


> I must have missed something in this debate.
> 
> How is an adopted person a vegetable?


Sauf is talking about adopting a severely mentally/physically disabled infant.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Mar 1, 2012)

OK I thought it must have been something like that.

Obviously this debate is waay off course.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> this article is essentially admitting that pro-lifers have won the logical argument about life so now our opponents are simply openly advocating murder.




Thinking it has anything to do with pro-lifers and such.
Just as bad as politicians I tell ya.


baconbits said:


> All good reasons to end the heinous institution of abortion.  *It is a moral stain on the civilized world.*


Just like religion right?
There is nothing naturally evil about abortion like you think it is.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:
			
		

> All good reasons to end the heinous institution of abortion. It is a moral stain on the civilized world.



Another emotional argument I see.


----------



## rohanshah1 (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> All good reasons to end the heinous institution of abortion.  It is a moral stain on the civilized world.



I have a question for you baconbits
Why do you not support abortion ?
religion?
beliefs?
humanity?
what specific reason?


----------



## impersonal (Mar 1, 2012)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> couldn't be more clear if I tried, I define genocide as the mass murdering of innocent humans, babies=humans, the math is simple.





			
				wikipedia said:
			
		

> Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group", though what constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars.


Really, the term "genocide" doesn't apply at all here.


Blackfeather Dragon said:


> birth should constitute an absolute limit (unless it is a severe case, you can read more below) because at that point we have a living person, a human. There is a reason we are not animals.


1) We _are_ animals, though that has nothing to do with the debate.
2) Birth does not change anything. A nine month old baby in the womb and a nine month and 30 minutes old baby out of the womb are pretty much identical, in all aspects that matter.



Blackfeather Dragon said:


> the fetus has been born and is therefore a sentient being
> the being is already living
> the baby is already living and has all of the characteristic that makes us human


None of this makes any sense whatsoever.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 1, 2012)

baconbits said:


> You don't have to be religious to make that point.  Life at some point must begin.  We must make some logical argument where life begins and the only logical point is conception.


The religious part in this is the assumption that life is sacred. This is a religious view, because it assumes there is something magical about human life that makes it valuable, even in its most basic form.

So, yes, a "new human life", in the biological sense of the term, begins at conception. However, this new human life is almost completely meaningless until it begins to develop into something more interesting, more capable of thought, of self-consciousness, of love, of pain, of pleasure, etc. This is the non-religious view - the one that doesn't admire life for the sake of it being life. Biology isn't morality! But rather, a person should be valued for the things that make him a person; not his DNA, but his consciousness, not his blood color, but his ability to fall in love, etc.




baconbits said:


> Which means essentially that you have no position and thus have in effect fled the debate.  The question of when life begins is really teh only question that matters.  Once we have a life then ending it is killing it.


If I absolutely need to have a position, it's going to be something like that:

 *Moral point of view:* there sometimes are good reasons for killing people, at any age of their lives (hardened criminals, suffering old people,...). In that sense, there is no limit to "abortion", in the general sense of euthanasia. It is a bit meaningless to discuss until which age abortion/euthanasia is morally valid, because there's always going to be a hypothetical situation in which it is; eg. an island on which food is becoming scarce, the future Hitler, etc. If we're talking about aborting/euthanizing because we "feel like it", then it's always immoral, if only a little bit; but people who take these decisions have actual reasons, such as not being ready to be a mother, not having money, having been raped by a bunch of nazis, etc (also see the previous examples). A complete answer would involve a list of all these hypothetical situations and how they compare to the value of a fetus', or a baby's life.
 *Legal point of view:* the cases in which abortion (or euthanasia) can be done should be very strictly regulated to avoid a lot of abusive uses, eg. killing for personal profit, eugenism. We also want to avoid doing it when there are other, better solutions (eg. adoption). This will lead to a lot of hypothetical situations not being treated, but this is how law works. So, I guess the first 3 or 4 months of pregnancy constitutes an acceptable limit for no-questions-asked-abortion, though the number is a bit random admittedly. In some specific cases, extensions should be allowed, eg. rape victims, dawn's syndrome..., etc. I'm not so sure about after-birth "abortion", as I believe that in the vast majority of cases it's a choice that is too hard to inflict on parents. Making prenatal diagnosis mandatory, to allow for an informed choice, would be much less trouble.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 1, 2012)

What rankles here for me is the insane vitriolic reaction directed towards those who are simply trying to expand debate and discussion. They're not inciting infanticide.. it's quite a logical argument actually. Peter Singer has also had his life threatened for arguing this same point decades ago.



PDQ said:


> "Experts say" Of course, an expertise in ethical philosophy has different level of validation than, say, expertise in the field of mathematics.
> 
> Is killing a baby fresh out of the womb different from aborting it few hours earlier when it was in it?  Not really.  But compared to when it was an embryo months ago in gestation?


That's not really fair, they're clearly not holding embryos and newborns equivalent are they? As misleading as the title is, one would expect that minimum amount of credit to be given..


----------



## Black Superman (Mar 1, 2012)

Parents? Don't you mean the parent with the vagina? I don't care what you women do with your own body, just don't drag me into the shit like I have an equal say in the matter. There is no shared responsibility.


----------



## Superstars (Mar 1, 2012)

The Fireball Kid said:


> I don't understand why people get so upset by it. Fetuses don't have dreams, feelings, emotions, or memories. We're not going up to someone with a family, emotions, a life. It's a bunch of cells being destroyed.
> 
> The life of an established human should matter more than something that will _become_ a human.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Mar 1, 2012)

If a fetus is merely a potential human, then what is an ideal human? Is an old person a former human? From a materialist standpoint we're all a bunch of cells just like a fetus. It's the metaphysical conception of humanity that people are arguing. 

Ultimately the lack of logical consistency is pragmatic only in its support of bias. The "it's not human" argument gives society warrant to kill more than just unborn children. But society doesn't cash that in. That is the point this article makes.


----------



## Doge (Mar 1, 2012)

...this makes me sad.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 1, 2012)

Good Lord.


----------



## Kunoichiwa (Mar 1, 2012)

An embryo can't survive outside of their mother's womb, a baby can. That difference in itself is enough to say that an embryo and a baby aren't the same thing.

I would only consider euthanasia if the child was, without a doubt, going to die after much suffering. Any other case and I say let the kid live. There should be no doubt whether or not a baby has human rights because, while he or she needs somebody to take care of him/her, that person doesn't have to be the mother. Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice you should be able to see that the mother has no right to end the life of this baby who has a life that is independent from hers.


----------



## Rouge Angle (Mar 1, 2012)

I read about that. I'm amazed they actually had the balls to publish that.


----------



## TSC (Mar 1, 2012)

Red Queen said:


> If that was the case I'd be left for dead being premature.
> 
> You know how many people would die at birth for having some little thing wrong with them? Do you understand or are you still in your own little world? We are human and we don't think like unintelligent animals that leave babies just because they are sick. Elephants, *monkeys*, etc. don't abandon their young because there is something wrong with them. A mother has a sentimental bond with a child even if it has a defect, please respect that.



while not monkeys exactly, Chimps have been know to even eat their own babies.



neko-sennin said:


> Yeah, the Hitler Trend seems to be on an upswing lately.



yeah especially with Kubo and german themes.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Mar 1, 2012)

Lol fuck morals...
Sophocles said "To never have been born may be the greatest boon of all."


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 1, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Same, just end their miserable lives before they can burden themselves and others. We waste so much money on those who were born ill when we could use that money to help those who actually have established themselves in the world and need medical assistance.
> 
> Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it. Many animals will gladly throw a newborn out of the nest if they realize there is something wrong with it, and for good reason too it would be a waste to feed it when there are other babies to be helped.



I understand where things like this come from, but I can't agree. I mean if you feel you need to then go ahead, but I think every life should be given a chance. 

That dwells into where people consider where life begins, and obviously this isn't the same for all. 

However, I never understood the argument "animals do it, so we should be able to as well." Animals do a lot of shit, but we have the ability to think and consider the consequences of our actions and shit. They don't.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Mar 2, 2012)

After-birth abortion? Sounds like a troll.
Humans have a right to life... but they do not have a right to take over another person's body for any length of time. What a woman does with her body is up to her, big government step off.


----------



## HolyDemon (Mar 2, 2012)

Super Goob said:


> I understand where things like this come from, but I can't agree. I mean if you feel you need to then go ahead, but I think every life should be given a chance.



You ever think about giving that juicy steak on the dining table a chance?


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 2, 2012)

HolyDemon said:


> You ever think about giving that juicy steak on the dining table a chance?



Hardly see how that has anything to do with what I'm saying. But since you wanna dick around what I'm saying, I think every _human_ life deserves a chance. 

Don't derail the thread with semantics.

Edit: And in direct response to the OP, those experts are disgusting. Nothing gives anyone the right to kill another person unless it is to preserve their own life (self-defense). Its almost like they're trying to justify murder. Sick, bruh.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 2, 2012)

Super Goob said:


> Hardly see how that has anything to do with what I'm saying. But since you wanna dick around what I'm saying, I think every _human_ life deserves a chance.
> 
> Edit: And in direct response to the OP, those experts are disgusting. Nothing gives anyone the right to kill another person unless it is to preserve their own life (self-defense). Its almost like they're trying to justify murder. Sick, bruh.



That made no sense. Why does every human life deserve a chance? Should rape victims not take the morning after pill? Why not? What's the value of a one-cell-big fertilized egg? How does it compare to a 10 years old kid? I can see people like you saving a couple of day-old embryos at the cost of somebody else's life. This is insane.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 2, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Same, just end their miserable lives before they can burden themselves and others. We waste so much money on those who were born ill when we could use that money to help those who actually have established themselves in the world and need medical assistance.
> 
> Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it. Many animals will gladly throw a newborn out of the nest if they realize there is something wrong with it, and for good reason too it would be a waste to feed it when there are other babies to be helped.



By that logic, there is no reason to help anyone at all, under any circumstances whatsoever. You just want an excuse to promote the murder of children.

You, and those like you, are the burdens on society who should have been aborted, and it's certainly not too late.

I have faith that nature will do its job, in time.


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Mar 2, 2012)

Strong words from Prof Julian Savulescu, a guy who didn't even get into medical school. I don't even think he could explain embryogenesis in frogs.

So why should I listen to him?


----------



## HolyDemon (Mar 2, 2012)

Shima Tetsuo said:


> By that logic, there is no reason to help anyone at all, under any circumstances whatsoever.



The world would be perfect place if people don't need reason to help each other, however people do need reasons to help (such as fame, politics, job prospect, ego, proof of virtue, relationship, laws, etc...)

Let's be honest here, do you help an old lady carrying large bags because you just do, or because the ever watchful society expects you to, or because you want to please your chivalrous conscience?


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 2, 2012)

HolyDemon said:


> The world would be perfect place if people don't need reason to help each other, however people do need reasons to help (such as fame, politics, job prospect, ego, proof of virtue, relationship, laws, etc...)
> 
> Let's be honest here, do you help an old lady carrying large bags because you just do, or because the ever watchful society expects you to, or because you want to please your chivalrous conscience?



I don't help old ladies carry their bags. 

Are you suggesting that this means I should kill them?


----------



## Jesus (Mar 2, 2012)

KuzuRyuSen said:


> Strong words from Prof Julian Savulescu, a guy who didn't even get into medical school. I don't even think he could explain embryogenesis in frogs.
> 
> So why should I listen to him?



I suspect the guy is trolling anyway, but this. Lol "experts"


----------



## Hero of Shadows (Mar 2, 2012)

Honestly this seems like more of a ploy of the "Pro Life side".


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 2, 2012)

impersonal said:


> That made no sense. Why does every human life deserve a chance? Should rape victims not take the morning after pill? Why not? What's the value of a one-cell-big fertilized egg? How does it compare to a 10 years old kid? I can see people like you saving a couple of day-old embryos at the cost of somebody else's life. This is insane.



Way to put words in my mouth, and not read a single word I said. Is a ten year old's life less valuable than a billionaire philanthropist or yours? I can understand disagreeing with my stance, but to act like its completely insane? The fuck are you on? Who are you, or anyone really to tell anyone where life begins? You can down your checklist of arbitrary "prerequisites" of a human life, and I'll stick to my equally arbitrary (objectively anyway) belief.  

Anyway, let me quote myself and cure you of your ignorance.



> I understand where things like this come from, but I can't agree. I mean if you feel you need to then go ahead, but I think every life should be given a chance.
> 
> That dwells into where people consider where life begins, and obviously this isn't the same for all.



If you don't think an embryo is worthy of living then fine, but realize not everyone thinks that way. I completely understand getting an abortion after being raped. There are alternatives though, and not every woman that is raped want to abort. Just because I think people should try to weigh options other than abortion, I'm crazy?

You can shut the entire fuck up until you come to YOUR senses and realize people can have differing opinions on a subject (especially something as polarizing as abortion).

And before you respond, why don't you tell me why every human life _doesn't_ deserve a chance? Why the fuck not?


----------



## Kαrin (Mar 2, 2012)

"Experts" ...


----------



## baconbits (Mar 2, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> It didn't at all, and that response was made in regards to that. You've made no argument for your belief that life begins at contraception, which is entirely faith-based and has no logical standing.



I made several such arguments and I will cite the basic ones again:

1. Conception is the moment when the two separate organisms form a unique living creature with its own DNA.
2. Life must begin somewhere: logically it cannot be just when the mother gives birth, because defining life in that way defines life by where the body is, not what incorporates it.

A more critical argument is this: if we do not know when life begins should we take decisive action to end such a life not knowing whether we're committing murder or not?



Seto Kaiba said:


> That was your response, and you scratching your head over it only proves your lack of understanding on the basics of human biology. A zygote is not a child, and it is definitely not viable. An embryo is not viable, and a fetus is only viable at the third trimester. There is a clear difference between those and a baby that is the end product of the gestational period.



SK, the reason its difficult to debate you is because its like debating a robot - no matter what I say you still are going to issue the same response.  The point you were responding to was not about conception or the zygote.  It was about your (illogical) argument that somehow the fetus becomes human the instant it leaves its mother.

Secondly viability was never my argument.  Whether the child can survive on its own or not has nothing to do with whether it is alive.  If I had to have a feeding tube and couldn't survive any other way I'd still be alive. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> Your entire point hinges on the concept of sentience.



Even though I repudiated that argument?  This is why I say you have robo responses - doesn't matter what your opponent says, you just say what you wanted him to say and respond accordingly.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The embryo's size is a valid point of its viability and development, its idiotic to compare to the heights of people that actually exist.



It was idiotic to show you the idiotic argument I was confronting.  The size of an embryo has nothing to do with the life it contains or its value.  Size was possibly one of the worst arguments you could have made, thus it deserved the comparison.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The stages of development during gestation are hardly useless facts, as they are and have been entirely relevant to the abortion debate. Yet you like the ethicists fail to understand that.



I understand the stages of development.  I just don't see how they refute a single point of my argument.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 2, 2012)

Super Goob said:


> Way to put words in my mouth, and not read a single word I said. Is a ten year old's life less valuable than a billionaire philanthropist or yours? I can understand disagreeing with my stance, but to act like its completely insane?


I wouldn't call it that way if you hadn't called another stance "sick" and murderous.




Super Goob said:


> Who are you, or anyone really to tell anyone where life begins?


I return the question.



Super Goob said:


> And before you respond, why don't you tell me why every human life _doesn't_ deserve a chance? Why the fuck not?


I think I made that clear already, it's up to you read my previous posts within this very thread.


----------



## Sillay (Mar 2, 2012)

Except for the fact that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester when the fetus has absolutely no way of surviving without the potential mother.

Much different than killing a baby that has the capability of breathing on its own and getting nutrition without the direct assistance of the umbilical cord.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 2, 2012)

Darth inVaders said:


> What a woman does with her body is up to her,



Oh, you mean like choosing to use her body for sex? Something she knows could get her pregnant. I thought we DID give women that choice. 

Of course by your logic she should be allowed to stab random people as well. Its her body right? Why can't she use her arm to impale someone else with a sharp object?


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 2, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> *Of course by your logic she should be allowed to stab random people as well*. Its her body right? Why can't she use her arm to impale someone else with a sharp object?


What gave you the impression she isn't allowed to?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 2, 2012)

> All good reasons to end the heinous institution of abortion. It is a moral stain on the civilized world.



The trouble is, quandaries like this are actually marks of the civilized. Civilization doesn't suggest promoting peace and harmony. Civilizations are by illustration bodies that frequently cut off its own fingers and digits, sacrificing the needs of the few for the needs of the many, and otherwise juggling this great big balancing act with a great many people living and struggling with an evolving compromise in their development. Everybody talks about Hitler, but one of the reasons Hitler succeeded for as long as he did was because he was seizing on an actual working aspect of society, and empowering it. This 'aspect' is not inherently evil and genocidal, and it takes place in every current civilization.

To be clear, civilization allows violence to take place. Civilization, in some cases, mandates violence take place. I think what you're talking about is the reasoning world, and the problem is, abortion is a product of the reasoning world. People can reason themselves in the wrong direction, for sure, but civility means nothing of peace or nonviolence. It is courteous and rationalized. The idea that all life is sacred, which is an overriding ideology on the anti-abortion front, is a difficult bit of nonsense to explore, since we understand that by existing, our individual will, even indirectly, end up using the resources and hording them from another individual. Life is still about competition, and abortion is nothing if not the premeditation of an eventual life that simply cannot compete- whether through defects or because it is unwanted. You can believe it's evil, but it's still courteous, and most abortions are done in the early stages when the organism has little more sentience than the millions of organisms we casually slaughter in our every day lives walking about town.

Civilization uses death for its own benefits, understanding that death is not inherently evil or cruel. So long as it is performed humanely, and so long as there is debate like this keeping people on their toes, I'm alright with it. I would never want a retarded child, and it would be traumatizing for me to even allow that child of mine to be borne and exist in such a state. I understand why I wouldn't be allowed to smother the child with a pillow as he or she is sleeping, but it's also understandable why his or her mother would be allowed to consent an early stage abortion before the organism is sentient complex life. Nobody wants a future where everybody is casually banging around and then aborting their late stage child before putting out their cigarette on its cadaver and then jumping the doctor's bones, but that's not actually happening, so it's moot.



> Of course by your logic she should be allowed to stab random people as well. Its her body right? Why can't she use her arm to impale someone else with a sharp object?



You're misunderstanding (deliberately). An unborn child is dependent on the mother's body to survive. The majority of abortions performed are not stabbing at the developing organism with a cleaver, they are removing it from the mother, at which point it dies. It's vicious but it's natural- the mother has total control. It's a control you apparently don't want her to legally have, but whether legalized or not, it's there, and civilized parts of the world don't punish her for exercising that right anymore. At least, up until the certain point when the organism develops, is born, and can then be taken care of by anyone, and the mother loses her natural control.


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 2, 2012)

impersonal said:


> I wouldn't call it that way if you hadn't called another stance "sick" and murderous.
> 
> 
> I return the question.
> ...



They're talking about killing babies, bruh. Not just what I consider a child, but one that has been born. Are you saying you agree an infant, that is no longer in the womb, is worthless? That it should be killed? That is sick.

I'll read them. Just for reference, your stance isn't what made me angry, but rather your attack on me. Fuck that shit.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 2, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> You're misunderstanding (deliberately).



Actually I fully get it. It is just a bad argument (deliberately).



> An unborn child is dependent on the mother's body to survive.



And a child after birth can just be placed into a house by itself and be pretty successful amrite?



> The majority of abortions performed are not stabbing at the developing organism with a cleaver, they are removing it from the mother, at which point it dies.



I wasn't literally talking about a baby being stabbed. I was just using it as an example. Why should we stop her from doing something she wants to do with her body (ie stabbing someone)? Why should she be punished for that? 



> the mother has total control.



Just like she has total control over when to spread her legs. Or if she is freaky get on her hands and knees for some doggystyle action while having her hair pulled while screa.......We are getting off topic.


----------



## skins (Mar 2, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Just like she has total control over when to spread her legs. Or if she is freaky get on her hands and knees for some doggystyle action while having her hair pulled while screa.......We are getting off topic.



35% of abortions are due to rape or i*c*st, so this is not entirely true, just an FYI. (I have a medical journal source to back this up, still trying to find it though)

And also? Men have total control over when to spread _their_ legs too. Please don't forget that they also have a hand in why abortion has been around for over 2000 years.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 2, 2012)

skins said:


> 35% of abortions are due to rape or i*c*st, so this is not entirely true, just an FYI.



Yes yes. We all know about rape. That isn't what I am talking about however and I don't feel the need to mention its exclusion every time this is discussed. 



> And also? Men have total control over when to spread _their_ legs too. Please don't forget that they also have a hand in why abortion has been around for over 2000 years.



Wait what?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 2, 2012)

> And a child after birth can just be placed into a house by itself and be pretty successful amrite?



Other people are then able to take care of the child as well as the birth mother. And as soon as that option opens up, civilization understandably closes the doors on the mother's ability to choose life or death. We both agree this is a good thing.



> Just like she has total control over when to spread her legs. Or if she is freaky get on her hands and knees for some doggystyle action while having her hair pulled while screa.......We are getting off topic.



Cyphon, the trouble is the natural consequences of our actions aren't equal. As soon as a person is sexually active they can enjoy the consequences of becoming pregnant, which is a lifelong consequence to a moments-long act of hormones. That's not fair, and it's not sensible to think any generation of women are going to be able to deal with that hand.

Ironically, you're telling women to deal with the nature of their fertility, while wanting to forbid women their natural control over that pregnancy once conception occurs. That doesn't work. It's hypocritical.

...also ironically, I want women not to have to deal with the nature of their fertility, while I do want women to have the total natural control over their own pregnancy. That also doesn't work. I am also being slightly hypocritical when favoring/ not favoring what's natural.

So I guess we're two peas in a pod.


----------



## skins (Mar 2, 2012)

Cyphon said:


> Yes yes. We all know about rape. That isn't what I am talking about however and I don't feel the need to mention its exclusion every time this is discussed.



If you exclude rape, then you have no reason to exclude other woman. Abortion is abortion is abortion. It's all the same. What's the difference with two woman who get abortions aside from their reasoning? Absolutely nothing.



> Wait what?



...Men kind of have to have sex in order for a woman to get pregnant, and I know many instances personally where men have lied about being sterilised to avoid wearing condoms, sabotaged birth control, removed condoms during sex or just before without the woman's notice against her consent, or in general just not been honest. 

Placing the blame entirely on the woman just because she is the one who has to go through with the procedure is wrong, and I personally find repugnant, as a woman myself.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 2, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> Other people are then able to take care of the child as well as the birth mother. And as soon as that option opens up, civilization understandably closes the doors on the mother's ability to choose life or death. We both agree this is a good thing.



She shouldn't have the choice before then either. It is basically the same thing. She shouldn't have the option to prevent life just because she doesn't like it. There are a lot of things and people I don't particularly care for but I am not allowed to destroy them. 



> As soon as a person is sexually active they can enjoy the consequences of becoming pregnant, which is a lifelong consequence to a moments-long act of hormones. That's not fair, and it's not sensible to think any generation of women are going to be able to deal with that hand.



Not a strong argument at all. 

As you mentioned after the pregnancy there are options suche as adoption available so there isn't much in the way of life long consequences. Even if she raised the kid herself you are looking at 17-18 years she is responsible and then she no longer has to be. That isn't lifelong.

By your same argument murders should go unpunished. Why should someone spend 18 years or life in prison for 1 moment of anger? 



> Ironically, you're telling women to deal with the nature of their fertility, while wanting to forbid women their natural control over that pregnancy once conception occurs. That doesn't work. It's hypocritical.







> So I guess we're two peas in a pod.



Not really.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 2, 2012)

skins said:


> What's the difference with two woman who get abortions aside from their reasoning? Absolutely nothing.



Because we are discussing control of ones actions and rights.

A woman can't control is she gets pregnant from a rape. She was forced to do it. Her right to choose not to have sex was taken from her.

In a normal situation her right is whether or not to have sex. She knows the consequences and she knows how to prevent them. It is no different than a criminal. They know that stealing will put them in jail. They have a choice to steal or not to steal. After that, the rights end. You made a choice and you live with the consequence of it. 



> Placing the blame entirely on the woman just because she is the one who has to go through with the procedure is wrong, and I personally find repugnant, as a woman myself.



Men can't control whether a woman gets an abortion or not so why would I blame them for a woman getting an abortion? That makes no sense. 

If you are talking about other things I agree with you. The man should stay around and be a good father to the child and such. He shouldn't run away from his responsibility.


----------



## baconbits (Mar 2, 2012)

skins said:


> 35% of abortions are due to rape or i*c*st, so this is not entirely true, just an FYI.
> 
> And also? Men have total control over when to spread _their_ legs too. Please don't forget that they also have a hand in why abortion has been around for over 2000 years.



Please, please back these statements up with some links.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Please, please back these statements up with some links.



Of all people to say this.


----------



## skins (Mar 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> Please, please back these statements up with some links.



I can provide the medical journals that the statistics were taken from as soon as I find them if you would like.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Mar 2, 2012)

skins said:


> 35% of abortions are due to rape or i*c*st, so this is not entirely true, just an FYI.
> 
> And also? Men have total control over when to spread _their_ legs too. Please don't forget that they also have a hand in why abortion has been around for over 2000 years.



Actually it's around 1%


----------



## HolyDemon (Mar 2, 2012)

Super Goob said:


> And before you respond, why don't you tell me why every human life _doesn't_ deserve a chance? Why the fuck not?



Since you have eliminated the chance for other being at life. Who gives humans this right to have a chance, while other living beings don't? Who gives humans this right to make some lives more precious than others? By what standard are you considering human's life higher than that of other living being? 

Why should we give an ungrateful, domineering creature a chance?



> Nothing gives anyone the right to kill another person unless it is to preserve their own life (self-defense).



And what exactly, gives people the right to kill another person for self-defense?


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 2, 2012)

Cyphon, did you not understand the issue in telling women to deal with the nature of their own fertility, while at the same time suggesting it should be illegal for civilization to deal with the nature of women's pregnancy, and the mother-child dependence therein? If you defer to nature on female fertility, you ought to defer to nature on motherhood supremacy (such as their ability to kill their child). If your argument has nothing to do with deference to nature- a poster in this thread, I think bacon bits, already pointed out how silly it is to defer totally to our natural processes and powers- then why do you keep returning to the platform that well, women get pregnant if they have sex, therefore if they don't want to get pregnant they should wait to have sex? That's a _huge_ deference to the rules of nature, and nowhere else in your reasoning do you show the slightest interest in holding nature supreme. People can have nuanced arguments, but are you okay with contraceptives and such?



> By your same argument murders should go unpunished. Why should someone spend 18 years or life in prison for 1 moment of anger?



That certainly puts the principle of my argument in a different light, but it's still illustrative. For example, I 'do' think it would be unfair to lock someone up for 18 years because of an isolated moment of anger. Defense lawyers actually 'do' try to prove that such crimes are essentially isolated moments, because such proofs reduce or change the seriousness of the sentence. But the point of the principle is lost in this analogy because hormones are frequent and sustained, and society treats fucking wildly different than it treats murderous rage. The reason we lock up criminals for murder is because murder is illegal, and the murderer is at risk of continuing to commit the illegal action, and neither of these things relate to sex, because sex is neither illegal nor discouraged. It's wildly encouraged. It sounds like you have might have an issue with social morals at large, in which case this isn't a conversation about women, and men should be included as well.



> A woman can't control is she gets pregnant from a rape. She was forced to do it. Her right to choose not to have sex was taken from her.



This is an odd thing we hear a lot from people who are for banning abortions. 'Except in cases of rape'. The anti advocates are probably thinking they are showing more humanity when making that exception, but contrarily it reveals some kind of general contempt for this sort of empathy in every other situation.


----------



## skins (Mar 2, 2012)

Cyphon said:
			
		

> In a normal situation his right is whether or not to have sex. He knows the consequences and he knows how to prevent them. It is no different than a criminal. They know that stealing will put them in jail. They have a choice to steal or not to steal. After that, the rights end. You made a choice and you live with the consequence of it.



Edited that for you. 



Descent of the Lion said:


> Actually it's around 1%



For recorded rapes perhaps. The statistics I quoted were from a medical journal citing i*c*st, domestic violence and rape, not just rape itself. It also took into account unrecorded rapes, domestic violence and i*c*st.

Also,  account for 26% of woman who have abortions, for those who say she should wait until marriage to have sex. :3


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Mar 2, 2012)

skins said:


> For recorded rapes perhaps. The statistics I quoted were from a medical journal citing i*c*st, domestic violence and rape, not just rape itself. It also took into account unrecorded rapes, domestic violence and i*c*st.



Link please.


----------



## skins (Mar 2, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> Link please.



_Again_, I am trying to find the Medical Journal cited. I do not have a link to it, but once I find the name of it I will post it.

However,  at least acknowledges more than just recorded rapes in its statistics. I'll keep looking for the journal.


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 2, 2012)

HolyDemon said:


> Since you have eliminated the chance for other being at life. Who gives humans this right to have a chance, while other living beings don't? Who gives humans this right to make some lives more precious than others? By what standard are you considering human's life higher than that of other living being?
> 
> Why should we give an ungrateful, domineering creature a chance?
> 
> ...



Why do so many people feel the need to treat people like they are inherently evil, fucked up beings? 

The short answer is that we do. Why do you hold an animal's life on an equal level as a person's? They are not protected by our Constitution. They don't have jobs, they aren't paid. They don't own things. 

But I'm guessing from your earlier post that you don't think people should eat animals, and you make it your job to try to demonize people that do. Well, I don't feel bad about it. I do feel like farms that produce a large amount of livestock should keep their animals in better condition, not just for their sake, but also our own. If you're vegan or whatever cool, but I'm not and don't plan on it. 

This is drifting off-topic though, so do not expect another response related to this issue.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Mar 2, 2012)

^^ Very well.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 2, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> Actually it's around 1%



1% is still alot also where is your link?
I see what skins is getting at easily enough.


----------



## skins (Mar 2, 2012)

Okay, haven't found the exact source I wanted, but here's some other statistics that might interest you:

*Spoiler*: __ 




    Every 45 seconds someone in the United States is sexually assaulted (1).
    1 out of every 7 women currently in college has been raped (2), however, 9 out of 10 women raped on campus never tell anyone about the rape (3).
    1 in 10 men is raped in his lifetime (4), 1 in 7 of those victims will have been assaulted before the age of 18.
    More than 61.5% of rapes are never reported to law enforcement (5).
    Approximately 28% of rape victims are raped by their husbands, 35% by an acquaintance, and 17% by a relative other than spouse (6).
    74% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by assailants well known to the victim (7).
    A female child victim is 7 times more likely to be re-victimized as an adult (8).
    Nearly 6 out of 10 sexual assaults occur at the victim’s home or the home of a friend, relative, or neighbor (9).
    1 in 15 rape victims contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD) as a result of being raped (10).
*1 in 15 rape victims become pregnant as a result of being raped.*
    The United States has the world’s highest rape rate of all countries that publish such data- 13 times higher than England and more than 20 times higher than Japan (12).
    An American woman is 10 times more likely to be raped than to die in a car crash (13).
    61% of rape victims are females under the age of 18 (14).
    Contrary to common belief that violent crime rates are notably lower in rural areas, a recent analysis of location data collected for the 1999 National Women’s Study found that 10.1% of women living in rural areas had experienced a completed rape as compared to 13.6% of women living in urban and suburban communities—hardly a notably lower rate.

Lewis, S. 2003. Unspoken Crimes: Sexual Assault in Rural America, Enola, PA: National Sexual Violence Resource Center

References:

U.S. Department of Justice, 1994
Statistics on Sexual Violence Against Women, 1990; Woodruff & Koss
Rape Treatment Center of Santa Monica Longitudinal Study, 1995
Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2002 & The American Medical Association, 2000
Indiana Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2002
U.S. Department of Justice, 1994
U.S. Department of Justice, 1994
Indiana Coalition Against Sexual Assault, 2002
National Crime Victimization Survey, 1996
Statistics on Sexual Violence Against Women: A Criminological Study, 1990
Ibid. #10 Senate Judiciary Committee, 1990
Ibid. #12 American Medical Association, 2000


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 2, 2012)

skins said:


> 35% of abortions are due to rape or i*c*st, so this is not entirely true, just an FYI.



Not even _remotely_ accurate, just an FYI: 



The percentage of abortions on account of rape/i*c*st are substantially less than 5%.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Mar 2, 2012)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> 1% is still alot also where is your link?
> I see what skins is getting at easily enough.



And an elephant is big in relation to everyone on the earth.

Earth is small in relation to The sun, and so forth.





It's old, but I doubt rape and i*c*st made too many leaps and bounds in the years, despite that fad in 1993.



Now I'm going to leave. I have no intention of arguing in this thread. Waste of time.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 2, 2012)

skins said:


> For recorded rapes perhaps. The statistics I quoted were from a medical journal citing i*c*st, domestic violence and rape, not just rape itself. It also took into account unrecorded rapes, domestic violence and i*c*st.



Multiple studies, including those by pro-choice organizations, ask the women directly; unrecorded rapes are already accounted for.


----------



## skins (Mar 2, 2012)

lowtech redneck said:


> Not even _remotely_ accurate, just an FYI:
> 
> 
> 
> The percentage of abortions on account of rape/i*c*st are substantially less than 5%.



*FOR THE LAST TIME.*

That percentage includes *unreported rapes, cases of i*c*st, and abuse.* The statistic you have presented only accounts for reported and unreported RAPES.



> Multiple studies, including those by pro-choice organizations, ask the women directly; unrecorded rapes are already accounted for.



Because all woman are going to admit it?


----------



## baconbits (Mar 2, 2012)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> Of all people to say this.



I do tend to call out people with bogus "facts".  Thank you for noticing, sir.  But we have other intelligent people willing to educate you:



lowtech redneck said:


> Multiple studies, including those by pro-choice organizations, ask the women directly; unrecorded rapes are already accounted for.



/discussion.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 2, 2012)

baconbits said:


> /discussion.


Because they talk to every woman in the world.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 2, 2012)

skins said:


> *FOR THE LAST TIME.*
> 
> That percentage includes *unreported rapes, cases of i*c*st, and abuse.* The statistic you have presented only accounts for REPORTED RAPES.
> 
> ...



Maybe you should read the sources more carefully.

Under the right circumstances, yes:


----------



## DarkSpring (Mar 2, 2012)

Forcing unqualified deadbeat parents to raise children to have crummy lives is worse than killing babies/abortion IMO.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 2, 2012)

We have 9 pages of men discussing whether or not women can have abortions when what little responsibility we do have in reproduction, our seed, which is made up of definitively alive sperm, we treat with the same kind of calloused humor as taking a shit; ejaculating it indiscriminately over magazines, bed sheets, thighs, tits, kleenex, hands, hair, curtains, our dog, our cat, our secret gay lover, and once or twice the floor because we wanted to see how far it would shoot. And despite the male race being the farthest thing from the responsible 'procreator', we're still righteous about it.

This doesn't automatically invalidate anybody's argument, obviously, and fathers should have equal say over their equal child, and it would be just as silly to exclude men from the debate altogether. But people shouldn't forget their own allowed irresponsibility in life, especially not when proselytizing about the responsibility of others, and especially especially not when daring to make good on their word as law.


----------



## Black Wraith (Mar 2, 2012)

This topic has gotten way off topic. The OP has got nothing to do with rape.


----------



## Cyphon (Mar 2, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> then why do you keep returning to the platform that well, women get pregnant if they have sex, therefore if they don't want to get pregnant they should wait to have sex?



I keep returning to it because it is the common sense argument. I am not sure what your question even is at this point. 



> are you okay with contraceptives and such?



Yeah. 



> It sounds like you have might have an issue with social morals at large, in which case this isn't a conversation about women, and men should be included as well.



If men have no say in the abortion process why would we include them? That doesn't make sense. 

And yeah, I do have an issue with the moral decline of our society as a whole. 



> This is an odd thing we hear a lot from people who are for banning abortions. 'Except in cases of rape'.



For the record I think even in rape cases the woman should have the baby. I wouldn't go as far as to say she should be forced or anything, but I would say to keep it.



> The anti advocates are probably thinking they are showing more humanity when making that exception, but contrarily it reveals some kind of general contempt for this sort of empathy in every other situation.



Whatever the case with everyone else I just think it is fair. If they lost their right to initially choose it becomes a different question. It is really that simple.


----------



## HolyDemon (Mar 2, 2012)

Super Goob said:


> Why do so many people feel the need to treat people like they are inherently evil, fucked up beings?



I'm treating people as neutral being. 

Why are you treating humans as some inherently good, privileged, god-sent beings?



> The short answer is that we do. Why do you hold an animal's life on an equal level as a person's? They are not protected by our Constitution. They don't have jobs, they aren't paid. They don't own things.



Good, now you're quoting the Constitution. We need some ground to discuss on. 

Babies don't have jobs. Babies aren't paid. Babies don't own things. Draw your conclusion. 

Constitution doesn't protect humans. It only protects the people who have agreed to it. If a Chinese is not protected by your Constitution, by your logic, can I equate him to animal? And, what about Chinese babies?

Now when Constitution decides that some dirty evil Iraqi can be killed. Can I equate him to animal? 

Now when that Iraqi's Constitution decides that you can be killed. Can I equate you to animal?

And still, Constitution doesn't protect you from getting killed by lightning, does it? Now how come is the victim not given a chance? How come Constitution doesn't bring him back to life that he deserves? Obviously, Constitution has no power, and no right to lives.



> But I'm guessing from your earlier post that you don't think people should eat animals, and you make it your job to try to demonize people that do. Well, I don't feel bad about it. I do feel like farms that produce a large amount of livestock should keep their animals in better condition, not just for their sake, but also our own. If you're vegan or whatever cool, but I'm not and don't plan on it.



I'm eating just as much meat as the next person. I'm not in any way or form pro-life, or pro-animal. However, it reeks of hypocrisy when you're proclaiming to be pro-life, and benefiting from killing.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 2, 2012)

HolyDemon said:


> Babies don't have jobs. Babies aren't paid. Babies don't own things. Draw your conclusion.



Babies can grow up to get jobs, can grow up to get paid, can grow up to own things, and can grow up to help human society. Other species(on earth anyway) cannot. 



HolyDemon said:


> And still, Constitution doesn't protect you from getting killed by lightning, does it? Now how come is the victim not given a chance?



Getting struck by Lighting.. This is your response? I don't even know why you're comparing a non-living, uncontrollable phenomena of nature to a living reasoning human being. This notion just strikes me as asinine. 



HolyDemon said:


> I'm eating just as much meat as the next person. I'm not in any way or form pro-life, or pro-animal. However, it reeks of hypocrisy when you're proclaiming to be pro-life, and benefiting from killing.



Its actually not hypocritical since he's pro human life(since he's a human), and he's not benefiting from human deaths.

A lot of what you're saying makes little sense.


----------



## HolyDemon (Mar 2, 2012)

ImperatorMortis said:


> Babies can grow up to get jobs, can grow up to get paid, can grow up to own things, and can grow up to help human society. Other species(on earth anyway) cannot.



A cow works a lot to help human society, it has a job, but we, by our domineering way, decides that it doesn't get paid for its work, and by extent cannot own anything. 

If we don't give a chance to a being already working in the present, why should we give a chance to a being that _might_ be working in the future?

My sperm can grow up in a woman's womb to be a brilliant scientist who will revolutionize our world. Is to okay to flush it down the toilet?



> Getting struck by Lighting.. This is your response? I don't even know why you're comparing a non-living, uncontrollable phenomena of nature to a living reasoning human being. This notion just strikes me as asinine.



He's using Constitution, which is just as non-living, uncontrollable phenomena as Lightning. I think your notion that Constitution should be a better tool of judgement for life than Lightning is asinine. Let's pretend that China/America/Russia/Japan/North Korea/etc...'s Constitution decides that we should all die, and drops a nuclear bomb on all of us. How is that better an example than Lightning?

Now tell me what makes a human being more deserving to live than a, say, animal?



ImperatorMortis said:


> Its actually not hypocritical since he's pro human life(since he's a human), and he's not benefiting from human deaths.



Ever stop to think that your Constitution was gained and maintained by lots and lots of human death, both of your kinds and other's, possibly mine?

Aren't we all benefiting from billions of human deaths?


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Mar 2, 2012)

HolyDemon said:


> A cow works a lot to help human society, it has a job, but we, by our domineering way, decides that it doesn't get paid for its work, and by extent cannot own anything.



A cow is not human, nor is it as intelligent as a human. This is a silly comparison if I may be so rude; the average human being will not put the life of a cow over their own. Though I admit there are multiple variables to counteract my statement. For example if said human happened to be his/her worst enemy. But I am speaking generally. 

As for what a cow produces; it simply tool for meat, and dairy products. They are simply food to sustain. To sustain whom? The human species. They are our food, and simply do not have the same rights. It is the way things are, and not just for humans as well. A Cheeta obviously values her own family/sub-species over that of a Gazelle's or a Lion's.

Though for humanity this can change, if we learn to effectively manufacture food, and drink from nothing.  



HolyDemon said:


> If we don't give a chance to a being already working in the present, why should we give a chance to a being that _might_ be working in the future?



Simply because that life is human, and we're human. That's really all there is to it. It may be cruel, it may be unfair, but that's how nature works. 



HolyDemon said:


> My sperm can grow up in a woman's womb to be a brilliant scientist who will revolutionize our world. Why am I flushing it down the toilet?



I apologize. I believed you were debating the life of a born, and breathing human baby. Not a sperm cell or a fetus. 



HolyDemon said:


> He's using Constitution, which is just as non-living, uncontrollable phenomena as Lightning.



The Constitution isn't an uncontrollable phenomena. Its a piece of paper written by man, that dictates certain rules, and regulations. Its not an uncontrollable phenomena of nature. 



HolyDemon said:


> I think your notion that Constitution should be a better tool of judgement for life than Lightning is asinine.



I don't believe my notion is asinine. Lightning is for the most part a random occurrence in nature. No one can expect Lightning to observe, and obey the laws of humanity. The Constitution is a better tool of judgement for life(and by life I mean human life), because it was written by humans, for humans. 

We cannot expect Lightning to follow our laws, just as we cannot expect the Sun to follow our whims. 



HolyDemon said:


> Let's pretend that China/America/Russia/Japan/North Korea/etc...'s Constitution decides that we should all die, and drops a nuclear bomb on all of us. How is that better an example than Lightning?



Because humans made that chose. Also it most likely wasn't a random, spur of the moment decision; considering all of the countries leaders decided to do such a thing at or around the same time. 



HolyDemon said:


> Now tell me what makes a human being more deserving to live than a, say, animal?



To me? As a member of the human species I would say simply because he or she is human. 

Although for the sake of animal lovers or anyone who may take offense to my opinions, I feel I must stress that I am not condoning unnecessary cruelty to animals. 



HolyDemon said:


> Ever stop to think that your Constitution was gained and maintained by lots and lots of human death, both of your kinds and other's, possibly mine?
> 
> Aren't we all benefiting from billions of human deaths?



Yes it was gained by such things, but that's a case of learning from our past mistakes, and trying to turn those awful won lessons into something good. 

Bad things will happen, but we still have the choice make something good come of it, or prevent it from happening again in the future.


----------



## God (Mar 2, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Same, just end their miserable lives before they can burden themselves and others. We waste so much money on those who were born ill when we could use that money to help those who actually have established themselves in the world and need medical assistance.
> 
> Before people think "we should do our best to help them survive", I say bullshit. If something cannot survive without major assistance throughout it's life then it doesn't deserve it. Many animals will gladly throw a newborn out of the nest if they realize there is something wrong with it, and for good reason too it would be a waste to feed it when there are other babies to be helped.



Jesus Christ, could you be any more of a backwater genocidist? What outhouse were you conceived in?


----------



## HolyDemon (Mar 2, 2012)

ImperatorMortis said:


> A cow is not human, nor is it as intelligent as a human. This is a silly comparison if I may be so rude; the average human being will not put the life of a cow over their own. Though I admit there are multiple variables to counteract my statement. For example if said human happened to be his/her worst enemy. But I am speaking generally.



The average human won't put anything over his own. And depending on what is important to his survival and happiness, say he was hungry, he might decide to kill other humans to get the cow. Nowadays, the "cow" becomes money, oil, energy, drugs, the states, power, etc... 



> Simply because that life is human, and we're human. That's really all there is to it. It may be cruel, it may be unfair, but that's how nature works.



Sorry we must kill your baby, we have power, you don't, life is unfair, life is cruel, suck it up. 

I don't think that argument is going to work, and neither does yours.



> I apologize. I believed you were debating the life of a born, and breathing human baby. Not a sperm cell or a fetus.



you were speaking in the unforeseeable future, I responded as such



> The Constitution isn't an uncontrollable phenomena. Its a piece of paper written by man, that dictates certain rules, and regulations. Its not an uncontrollable phenomena of nature.



Can you control the Constitution? In regard to yourself, it is as uncontrollable as Lightning.




> I don't believe my notion is asinine. Lightning is for the most part a random occurrence in nature. No one can expect Lightning to observe, and obey the laws of humanity. The Constitution is a better tool of judgement for life(and by life I mean human life), because it was written by humans, for humans.



Lightning is predetermined by as set of nature, and it obeys the laws of nature. As we humans are a product of nature, we must follow its judgment. The fact we have yet to understand nature's rule doesn't undermine its credibility, if anything, it would make it a fairer system, since it's not corrupted by humans. 



> We cannot expect Lightning to follow our laws, just as we cannot expect the Sun to follow our whims.



If a tool of judgment follows my whims, it doesn't have any right to judge me. 



> Because humans made that chose. Also it most likely wasn't a random, spur of the moment decision; considering all of the countries leaders decided to do such a thing at or around the same time.



Lightning doesn't occur randomly. It follows a strict set of rules, part of which we have come to understood. Just because you're unable to witness all of its mechanism, like you're unable to attend the leader's meeting, doesn't mean that such occurrence is random.



> To me? As a member of the human species I would say simply because he or she is human.



As a member of society xyz, I say that citizen of my country deserve to live more than members of other society. I think you're beginning to see why we kill each other.



> Yes it was gained by such things, but that's a case of learning from our past mistakes, and trying to turn those awful won lessons into something good.
> 
> Bad things will happen, but we still have the choice make something good come of it, or prevent it from happening again in the future.



As of right now, criminals, enemies of your country, law enforcer, military staff are being murdered right now to maintain your peace and comfort. Unfortunately, you're still benefiting from the act. 

It wasn't mistakes, it was what guarantees you this right to live. By its power to take lives, it maintains its position to protect lives.


----------



## Boob (Mar 2, 2012)

Dafuq did I just read?


----------



## Mikaveli (Mar 3, 2012)

Horse              shit.


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Mar 3, 2012)

Jesus said:


> I suspect the guy is trolling anyway, but this. Lol "experts"



Agreed. Most guys in the medical field actually equate an embryo, a fetus, or even an infant to a full human being. So for someone like him to say something which is technically none of his business is quite preposterous in my opinion.


----------



## Superstars (Mar 3, 2012)

Kunoichiwa said:


> An embryo can't survive outside of their mother's womb, a baby can. That difference in itself is enough to say that an embryo and a baby aren't the same thing..



Lol What? 

An embryo and a baby [outside] are both dependant on the mother for survival.

Come at me.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Mar 3, 2012)

^ Someone does not know what viability means and when it occurs (I am talking about you) !!!!


I take it you failed science as well, huh ?


----------



## impersonal (Mar 3, 2012)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> ^ Someone does not know what viability means and when it occurs (I am talking about you) !!!!
> 
> 
> I take it you failed science as well, huh ?


Doesn't change the fact that viability is a retarded criterion.



			
				KuzuRyuSen said:
			
		

> Most guys in the medical field actually equate an embryo, a fetus, or even an infant to a full human being


I'm pretty sure you just made this up. Plus it doesn't make sense: "even an infant"?


I won't even get into the debate between imperatormortis and holydemon... It seems to me that neither of them makes any sense.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 3, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Doesn't change the fact that viability is a retarded criterion.



Not at all.


----------



## Archangel Michael (Mar 3, 2012)

1 A abortion and  killing a baby is two different thing.

2 When you have a abortion your baby isn't complete yet. When you kill a baby the baby out of your stomach.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 3, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Not at all.



What does viability mean about a foetus? It simply means that very advanced medical procedures can keep it alive. If medical science gets better, we may eventually manage to make a one-day-old fetus viable.

When that happens, will abortion become illegal?

And, furthermore, what does viability mean in terms of the moral worth of a fetus? Why not count the number of toes instead, or any other completely random idea?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 3, 2012)

impersonal said:


> What does viability mean about a foetus? It simply means that very advanced medical procedures can keep it alive. If medical science gets better, we may eventually manage to make a one-day-old fetus viable.



Well, actually viability means that it can survive WITHOUT artificial support.



> When that happens, will abortion become illegal?



You mistook what viability means in terms of gestation. Of course not, unless we become marsupials, embryos and early fetuses will never be viable outside the womb (or a womb-like apparatus if we make one). 



> And, furthermore, what does viability mean in terms of the moral worth of a fetus? Why not count the number of toes instead, or any other completely random idea?



Moral worth is subjective, and I don't view this as particularly moral, the medical practice of abortions. The concept of a "soul" is a faith-based matter, which I and many others don't believe in, and is not a scientific matter either. Abortion is simply a medical decision at the end of the day. 

Considering that, it is better to go with the hard facts of the gestational process. That being an abortion can only be called as such when it interrupts the process before it can fulfill its purpose (a viable fetus), and if it comes far enough that a viable infant has developed, you can hardly call it an abortion. The process that was to be aborted has already run its course.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 3, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Well, actually viability means that it can survive WITHOUT artificial support.





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, *albeit with artificial aid*") "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."
> 
> (...)
> 
> The limit of viability is the gestational age at which a prematurely born fetus/infant has a 50% chance of long-term survival outside its mother's womb. With the *support of neonatal intensive care units*, the limit of viability in the developed world has declined since 50 years ago, but has remained unchanged in the last 12 years. Currently the limit of viability is considered to be around 24 weeks although the incidence of major disabilities remains high at this point.



The notion of "viability without assistance" is going to be extremely hard to understand: what exactly constitutes medical assistance? The limit between the doctors' role and the parents' role is not clearly defined.


Seto Kaiba said:


> Moral worth is subjective


The issue of abortion is a moral one. It's a good idea to clearly treat it as such rather than pretend not to, and still treat it as such.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 3, 2012)

impersonal said:


> The notion of "viability without assistance" is going to be extremely hard to understand: what exactly constitutes medical assistance? The limit between the doctors' role and the parents' role is not clearly defined.



OK, you got me on that one, though the medical and legal definitions are a bit different...

Basically, as I've come to understand it, it means the fetus has come far enough that it can survive an extended amount of time outside the womb. Usually, that means whether or not the respiratory and nervous system has differentiated enough that it can breath on its own, and sustain that. According to the site you provided, it also is considered if there is reasonable likelihood of resuscitation if it's necessary.



> The issue of abortion is a moral one. It's a good idea to clearly treat it as such rather than pretend not to, and still treat it as such.



For the person doing it maybe, but for one that does not ever have to make that decision, not so much. The matter isn't really that complex to me, I leave the individual (the woman) to make that choice, it's really none of my business at the end of the day.

Even moreso, you start getting into the territory of "moral legislation", which never has worked out well. Again, it is a medical decision at the end of the day. One that a woman must make on her own. Going with that, it's much better to rely on the actual facts of gestation, and deriving the questions: Would the procedure be safe on the woman? Has the fetus already developed where it is viable? Rather than what people may have derived from their faith, such as a soul or where they think life begins.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 3, 2012)

I have a question that some of you may be able to answer:

What if the guy wants the baby and the woman doesn't?

If you say she has all the power, than does that mean if he doesn't want the baby and she does, and thus has it, he has no responsibility?

My question is purely in aspects to the guy's part and power.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 3, 2012)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Again, it is a medical decision at the end of the day. One that a woman must make on her own. Going with that, it's much better to rely on the actual facts of gestation, and deriving the questions: Would the procedure be safe on the woman? Has the fetus already developed where it is viable? Rather than what people may have derived from their faith, such as a soul or where they think life begins.


But what makes these questions relevant? It seems to me that this viability question is just not at all relevant to the whole issue at hand. What makes viability a better criterion than whether or not the fetus has teeth/hair/nails (for example)?

In the end, the core of the question is about _when it is acceptable_ to kill the fetus, and your response is arbitrary, just as valid as countless other possible criteria!


----------



## Raiden (Mar 3, 2012)

And the BS continues.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Mar 3, 2012)

Bishop said:


> I have a question that some of you may be able to answer:
> 
> What if the guy wants the baby and the woman doesn't?
> 
> ...



My controversial opinion is given the availability of abortion and the pill and given the lack of availability of a male version of the pill men shouldn't be automatically responsible for any children they father. Women have the powered and control over whether or not there will be a kid but with great power comes great responsibility. There should be a set time limit where by the man can register his fatherhood and thereby get a lifetime of claim to the child but also a lifetime of obligation (i.e. having to pay to support the child and mother). If they don't sign on they have no obligations to the child or mother but also no rights to see the child or be involved in its life until the kid turns 18.

In short given how widespread sleeping around is in modern culture it seems unfair to lumber a man with a kid he doesn't want for 20 years for something that might take minutes.

I think it's reasonable but would likely get shouted down. Deadbeat dads are much unloved.

Also, frankly, there are higher priorities. Like getting women and children to safety from violent fathers/partners or providing poor single mothers and their children with welfare and education ect ect.

And the whole idea of gold-diggers waiting to sucker in some poor guy then leech off him for the rest of his life is much over-hyped. It happens but rarely.


----------



## navy (Mar 3, 2012)

I hate how people think babies and developing babies are different species.

Then they give bullshit definitions on what makes a human.


----------



## αce (Mar 3, 2012)

Rather than the viability of a fetus with medical assistance, the moment a fetus should be considered a human is the moment it gains the ability to live independently of it's mother naturally. If I remember correctly, that is about 5-6 months in. Even if we advanced to the point where we were able to keep a fetus alive 1 day into the fetal stage, biologically, it'd still be pre-human as it'd be completely dependent on some sort of technological advancement, rather than an independent baby which only needs the basic requirements for life to be viable.

Although I would agree that this is more a moral choice than some people make it out to be.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 3, 2012)

The Pink Ninja said:


> My controversial opinion is given the availability of abortion and the pill and given the lack of availability of a male version of the pill men shouldn't be automatically responsible for any children they father. Women have the powered and control over whether or not there will be a kid but with great power comes great responsibility. There should be a set time limit where by the man can register his fatherhood and thereby get a lifetime of claim to the child but also a lifetime of obligation (i.e. having to pay to support the child and mother). If they don't sign on they have no obligations to the child or mother but also no rights to see the child or be involved in its life until the kid turns 18.
> 
> In short given how widespread sleeping around is in modern culture it seems unfair to lumber a man with a kid he doesn't want for 20 years for something that might take minutes.
> 
> ...



This is a good idea actually and was proposed to congress last year but was shot down because it could take advantage of women. However, a new proposal which will have a couple do a quick sign on a doc. that can be saved by smartphone is do to go through congress within the first half of the year (congress has it, but other proposals and bills take priority).

Many single mothers are single NOT because the guy just left after she got pregnant, but said they would stay then copped out after either the baby was born or toward that period, rather than the over-played: Leaves soon as he finds out.


----------



## Superstars (Mar 3, 2012)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> ^ Someone does not know what viability means and when it occurs (I am talking about you) !!!!
> 
> 
> I take it you failed science as well, huh ?





Don't ignore this. Like I said the baby outside it's mothers womb is still dependant on care from someone else, otherwise they die just like the fetus. You cut off the potential of growth for both humans. Lets's cut the in-between the lines politics and drop the pride here.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 3, 2012)

You shouldn't be deferring to the quotes, superstars. You might not agree with some of those guys. Moore, for example, concluded that the embryonic information in the quaran is proof Muhammad was a messenger of God. And Blerkom, for example, has made questionable public statements about anti-abortion measures which probably stand in opposition to your knee-jerk.

While glancing through some of the eyebrow raisers in that link, I came to an amusing but level headed argument by a legal director in Colorado's civil liberties union.


> Let’s say a woman is sexually active and she has a drink. If a drink is determined to harm a potential human life, well wouldn’t it be considered reckless endangerment to have that drink — or to engage in some other type of activity that would pose a risk to a fetus?
> If a woman has a beer while she is pregnant is she furnishing alcohol to a minor?



Is she?
If she isn't, that demonstrates a definable difference in the way we view gestating life as different from developed life.


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Mar 3, 2012)

impersonal said:


> I'm pretty sure you just made this up. Plus it doesn't make sense: "even an infant"?



I'm guessing you haven't studied embryology then? Pity.

You know, I really never understood the reasoning regarding the "fetus' dependence on its mother for survival". Its as if you are treating a fetus as some sort of a parasite. Quite frankly that is so degrading since at some point we all became one.

(Speaking from an immunologist's, the body produces IgE against a parasite. I never heard of anyone producing IgE against a fetus.)


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 3, 2012)

> I'm guessing you haven't studied embryology then? Pity.
> 
> You know, I really never understood the reasoning regarding the "fetus' dependence on its mother for survival". Its as if you are treating a fetus as some sort of a parasite. Quite frankly that is so degrading since at some point we all became one.
> 
> (Speaking from an immunologist's, the body produces IgE against a parasite. I never heard of anyone producing IgE against a fetus.)



You're an 18 year old immunologist who also happens to be a hardy embryology study? What?

You're just talking about antibodies. And there are quite a few horrible and startling examples of a mother producing antibodies against her unborn child because of unique differences in things like blood type confusing her body's responses. It's an oddity, but it does occur. I don't entirely understand it myself.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 3, 2012)

THIS BABY WAS BORN WITHOUT A BRAIN BUT ALL HUMANS NEED TO LIVE!!!

THIS BABY HAS THOUGHTS...err umm dreams...umm feelings...no..umm...this baby can eat and poop and deserves to live!


----------



## Bishop (Mar 3, 2012)

Fatback said:


> What's the difference between preventing a life and taking a life?



One will get you 20 to life in prison.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 3, 2012)

Fatback said:


> You might be one of the most disgusting individuals I have ever heard of. To take human life so lightly... You got problems bro.



I don't take human life lightly, but infelicitous life I feel has no place in our gene pool. Life that without technology would have died long before the first year cycle of their being. In our society such life would do nothing more than provide a false and twisted sense of altruism while taxing those who will now be "forced" to take care of it.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 3, 2012)

> I don't take human life lightly, but infelicitous life I feel has no place in our gene pool. Life that without technology would have died long before the first year cycle of their being. In our society such life would do nothing more than provide a false and twisted sense of autism while taxing those who will now be "forced" to take care of it.



How much, exactly, are you under the impression society spends and expends on people born with dependence-necessitating handicaps? I don't want to say it's 1%, because that would probably be too high.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 3, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> How much, exactly, are you under the impression society spends and expends on people born with dependence-necessitating handicaps? I don't want to say it's 1%, because that would probably be too high.



It is too much in proportion to their population.

Also meant *altruism, I accidentally typed autism....


----------



## skins (Mar 4, 2012)

KuzuRyuSen said:


> I'm guessing you haven't studied embryology then? Pity.
> 
> You know, I really never understood the reasoning regarding the "fetus' dependence on its mother for survival". Its as if you are treating a fetus as some sort of a parasite. Quite frankly that is so degrading since at some point we all became one.
> 
> (Speaking from an immunologist's, the body produces IgE against a parasite. I never heard of anyone producing IgE against a fetus.)



Technically speaking, a fetus _is_ classified as a parasitic lifeform. So yes, it is a parasite.

The truth is often something one never wants to hear.


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 4, 2012)

Fatback said:


> You might be one of the most disgusting individuals I have ever heard of. To take human life so lightly... You got problems bro.


No they are not.

At least as far as the brainless child goes.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Mar 4, 2012)

Superstars said:


> Don't ignore this. Like I said the baby outside it's mothers womb is still dependant on care from someone else, otherwise they die just like the fetus. You cut off the potential of growth for both humans. Lets's cut the in-between the lines politics and drop the pride here.



That is suppose to be proof ?


All it has are opinions with no actual scientific proof or graphs that actually show why the embryo (not fetus) can feel pain and is viable to live outside the womb (which it cannot) !

You obviously ignored the MAIN differences once again !

An embryo is not viable to live outside the womb due to its lack of major organs and ability to feel ANYTHING.  While a fetus after the 5 and 6 month is viable (able to live without needing a womb) because it has most of its major organs developed at that point that it is considered a full human being worth protecting by the country.



Of course, whether you believe abortion is right or wrong is up to  opinion....but it is a fact that an embryo is not viable to live outside the woman's body while a fetus in its 5th or 6th month can.


That is what viability means in the US Supreme Court's view.  Thus because of that, the US Supreme Court allows women to have abortions before the viability point since it does not have its major organs, have a conscience, nor can it feel any pain that defines it as fully human.  And because a woman will not have to go through a undue burden (forced into having an unwanted pregnancy that will damage her normal life and overall mental well-being)


----------



## impersonal (Mar 4, 2012)

KuzuRyuSen said:


> I'm guessing you haven't studied embryology then? Pity.
> 
> You know, I really never understood the reasoning regarding the "fetus' dependence on its mother for survival". Its as if you are treating a fetus as some sort of a parasite. Quite frankly that is so degrading since at some point we all became one.
> 
> (Speaking from an immunologist's, the body produces IgE against a parasite. I never heard of anyone producing IgE against a fetus.)



What are you talking about? I've been arguing AGAINST the notion that the fetus' dependence on the mother is important. I really suggest you read my posts. I'm arguing that abortion can be justified, but that dependence is not a good criterion.

You wrote that most guys in the medical field equate _"an embryo, a fetus or even an infant to a full human being"_. Firstly, you got it the wrong way around -- it should be "an infant, a fetus or even an embryo". Secondly I'm pretty sure you just made it up, considering that a lot of people in the medical field favor a right to abortion, and that you have no statistics to back up your claims.





			
				Fatback said:
			
		

> You might be one of the most disgusting individuals I have ever heard of. To take human life so lightly... You got problems bro.


You don't have the cognitive capacities to find an argument, so you just insult other people.


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Mar 4, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> You're an 18 year old immunologist who also happens to be a hardy embryology study? What?



I'm a third year pre-medical student.....



reiatsuflow said:


> You're just talking about antibodies. And there are quite a few horrible and startling examples of a mother producing antibodies against her unborn child because of *unique differences in things like blood type confusing her body's responses.* It's an oddity, but it does occur. I don't entirely understand it myself.



Its called hemolytic disease of the newborn. Not much of the ABO blood type though. Its more of the Rh blood type.



skins said:


> Technically speaking, a fetus _is_ classified as a parasitic lifeform. So yes, it is a parasite.
> 
> The truth is often something one never wants to hear.



 But fetuses are not classified as parasites in microbiology.

Lol. That "immunology" post was meant to be a joke. No need to take it seriously.


impersonal said:


> You wrote that most guys in the medical field equate _"an embryo, a fetus or even an infant to a full human being"_. Firstly, you got it the wrong way around -- it should be "an infant, a fetus or even an embryo". Secondly I'm pretty sure you just made it up, considering that a lot of people in the medical field favor a right to abortion, and that you have no statistics to back up your claims.



That is only in the most dire cases like ectopic pregnancy. However for cases like rape, unplanned pregnancies and such, abortion is actually frowned upon on.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 4, 2012)

> Its called hemolytic disease of the newborn. Not much of the ABO blood type though. Its more of the Rh blood type.



But then, you have heard of a mother producing antibodies against her unborn child. So much so that you even know the label of the disease! So why did you say you have never heard of a mother producing antibodies against her unborn child? This hemolytic disease thing isn't even the only instance in which such a thing can happen.

There are also a few parasites able to confuse the body from its typical antibody responses, and there are just so many immune system compromises and variables. I'm not even medically educated. These are all easy verifications of a very common, unskilled sense. The production of antibodies does not lend to classification by causation (treatment, yes, but not classification), and currently, it doesn't seem that the production of antibodies has not been used as definitive clarification towards what is or isn't a parasite. In any instance.

Now apparently you are an 18 year old who is three years into his pre-med at a college, which makes you an authority people are supposed to be able to defer to. I never even heard of the term IgE, and actually had to look it up before I realized you were just talking about antibodies, with the kind of suspiciously formal terminology that tends to come less from someone with knowledge than someone feigning knowledge.

Because there's this



> That is only in the most dire cases like ectopic pregnancy. However for cases like rape, unplanned pregnancies and such, abortion is actually frowned upon on.



Here's the second red flag. Are you inappropriate enough a to ask a variety of nurses and doctors while volunteering (given, the nurses and doctors are then inappropriate enough to answer)? Are you inappropriate enough to ask your teachers, or are your teachers inappropriate enough to bring up the subject? These are not discussion points for any pre-med class in America, and opinions given one way or another, at any time in your four year preparatory classes, would be so wildly unprofessional I can blindly generalize any such statement one way or another as a shoveling of bullshit.

So you're a little bit suspicious.


----------



## Fojos (Mar 4, 2012)

Black Wraith said:


> IIRC, Hitler basically said the same thing too...



 So? Hitler might have been evil, but he was far from stupid.



Yoko Takeo said:


> A newborn, on the other hand, is able to see, hear, taste, touch, learn  and grow. He/she has a consciousness, is able to make decisions albeit  on a much, much smaller scale than adults.



A fetus has all those things as well, I don't see what your point is.



Fatback said:


> You might be one of the most disgusting  individuals I have ever heard of. To take human life so lightly... You  got problems bro.



You're not a human if you don't have a brain. It's that simple.


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Mar 4, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> But then, you have heard of a mother producing antibodies against her unborn child. So much so that you even know the label of the disease! So why did you say you have never heard of a mother producing antibodies against her unborn child? This hemolytic disease thing isn't even the only instance in which such a thing can happen.



IgE. Immunoglobulin E is found on hypersensitivity reactions as well as parasitic infections. What causes hemolytic disease of the newborn is another subtype of immunoglobulin known as IgG since unlike the other antibodies, it can actually cross the placenta. The other immunoglobulins don't typically cross the placenta unless there are cases of placental leakage. That includes IgE.



reiatsuflow said:


> There are also a few parasites able to confuse the body from its typical antibody responses, and there are just so many immune system compromises and variables. I'm not even medically educated.



Then name one.



reiatsuflow said:


> These are all easy verifications of a very common, unskilled sense. The production of antibodies does not lend to classification by causation (treatment, yes, but not classification), and currently, it doesn't seem that the production of antibodies has not been used as definitive clarification towards what is or isn't a parasite. In any instance.



IgE promotes proliferation of a type of white blood cell known as eosinophil. In hematology, eosinophil count is used to asses parasitic infection. Since out of all the WBCs present in the blood, eosinophil is the one which is most directed against parasitic infections. 





reiatsuflow said:


> Here's the second red flag. Are you inappropriate enough a to ask a variety of nurses and doctors while volunteering (given, the nurses and doctors are then inappropriate enough to answer)? Are you inappropriate enough to ask your teachers, or are your teachers inappropriate enough to bring up the subject? These are not discussion points for any pre-med class in America, and opinions given one way or another, at any time in your four year preparatory classes, would be so wildly unprofessional I can blindly generalize any such statement one way or another as a shoveling of bullshit.
> 
> So you're a little bit suspicious.



You are presuming that I am an American?

But then, it was my fault to say that "most doctors" without saying "in my country".


----------



## Superstars (Mar 4, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> You shouldn't be deferring to the quotes, superstars. You might not agree with some of those guys. Moore, for example, concluded that the embryonic information in the quaran is proof Muhammad was a messenger of God. And Blerkom, for example, has made questionable public statements about anti-abortion measures which probably stand in opposition to your knee-jerk.


As long as they don't ignore these scientific facts that life begins at conception. And that I have other references other than those two backing me up.



> While glancing through some of the eyebrow raisers in that link, I came to an amusing but level headed argument by a legal director in Colorado's civil liberties union.
> 
> 
> Is she?
> If she isn't, that demonstrates a definable difference in the way we view gestating life as different from developed life.


She is, pregnant woman are warned all the time not to drink because it does affect the other life. Heck they can't even get a whiff of second hand smoke without it affecting the other life inside.



Fruits Basket Fan said:


> That is suppose to be proof ?
> 
> 
> All it has are opinions with no actual scientific proof or graphs that actually show why the embryo (not fetus) can feel pain and is viable to live outside the womb (which it cannot) !



It was to show you that those scientific references were _telling_ and explaining to you that life begins at conception. With the official references from where their scientific studies and reports are listed in detail. They did not say _if_ or _maybe_ life begins at conception the reports from their studies blatantly states that it is the humans inception. The only ones with opinions here is you.



> You obviously ignored the MAIN differences once again !
> 
> An embryo is not viable to live outside the womb due to its lack of major organs and ability to feel ANYTHING.  While a fetus after the 5 and 6 month is viable (able to live without needing a womb) because it has most of its major organs developed at that point that it is considered a full human being worth protecting by the country.


Lets kill the Comatose then, since they can't feel, they are not considered fully human yet, even though they have fully functioning organs. Again, a baby with functioning organs still needs a dependant just like the fetus in a womb. If both of these do not have a dependant they die: Clipping their future away. There is no difference when discussing these type of lives.



> Of course, whether you believe abortion is right or wrong is up to  opinion....but it is a fact that an embryo is not viable to live outside the woman's body while a fetus in its 5th or 6th month can.
> 
> That is what viability means in the US Supreme Court's view.  Thus because of that, the US Supreme Court allows women to have abortions before the viability point since it does not have its major organs, have a conscience, nor can it feel any pain that defines it as fully human.  And because a woman will not have to go through a undue burden (forced into having an unwanted pregnancy that will damage her normal life and overall mental well-being)


Cut the farce please. I see it very hypocritical for the so called "enlightened" to try and worry about the woman's future life [even though she is having raunchy bed sessions that invites other problems; STD's ect] and at the same time saying another's life inside of her is not worth it because it is not fully developed. So you want to cut the human's potential off from being fully developed and at the same time call yourselves a caring and loving society.

The fact is abortion is morally wrong, it is murder of another life. This is a scientific fact that life begins at conception and you people try to find ways around it by trying to twist what defines a life now despite the scientific reports. You think destroying the foundation [fetus] of the human is not murder you got problems. Destroy the foundation of a building and see if it stands. What you simply say is illogical and immoral.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 4, 2012)

Bioness said:


> THIS BABY WAS BORN WITHOUT A BRAIN BUT ALL HUMANS NEED TO LIVE!!!
> 
> THIS BABY HAS THOUGHTS...err umm dreams...umm feelings...no..umm...this baby can eat and poop and deserves to live!


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Mar 4, 2012)

Superstars said:


> It was to show you that those scientific references were _telling_ and explaining to you that life begins at conception. With the official references from where their scientific studies and reports are listed in detail. They did not say _if_ or _maybe_ life begins at conception the reports from their studies blatantly states that it is the humans inception. The only ones with opinions here is you.
> 
> 
> Lets kill the Comatose then, since they can't feel, they are not considered fully human yet, even though they have fully functioning organs. Again, a baby with functioning organs still needs a dependant just like the fetus in a womb. If both of these do not have a dependant they die: Clipping their future away. There is no difference when discussing these type of lives.
> ...



Again, it did not actually provided scientific proof that life begins at conception !

You honestly going by ideology rather than science.  This is not the first time that pro-life people claim "references" without actually showing people HARD CORE scientific facts and graphs as to why they came to that conclusion only for them to claim, "it came from a prestigious university" (where even then, it cannot be taken seriously unless they provided actual facts instead of ideology).


Comatose have all their major organs that defined it as human beings (did you miss that part where I said why an embryo is not considered a human yet?)......and they can survive outside the woman's body without being a parasite to the woman's body!  

A full term fetus, while it needs to be taken care of, does not need to actually have the woman's body to survive like it did when it was an embryo (a non-sentimental parasitic patches of cells that lacks even the most basic human organs)!  A baby can be given to a nurse or someone else using baby formula by another instead of the woman who gave birth to it!  That is what it means that it is viable (it not longer needs the woman's physical body to survive and it can become its own person that it can nutrition without being an parasite to the person's physical body).


Abortion is only morally wrong to the deep religious, but the fact is that an embryo is not even human yet and during the time before viability, a woman has every right to decide whether she needs to get rid of the pregnancy in the early stages or not.  Because believe it or not, unlike the pro-life people, we consider the woman's feelings and well being over particles of cells which has yet to have most of its major organs and ability to feel or even think of anything that it is basically a parasite to the woman's body and because it is her body, she can decide what to do inside it before the point of viability (again, the point when the fetus is developed enough to be able to survive without needing the womans' physical body and has most of its human organs developed)!

This is why a woman gets to decide why she gets to have an abortion in the early stages, the embryo is not human yet and we need to consider the woman's well being if having an unwanted pregnancy will cause harm toward her mental, social, and even physical life.  Whereas, a fetus in its 5th or 6th month can survive without actually feeding on the woman's body and has most of its major organs that defined it a fully human and thus must be protected.

That is what it means by viability.  Of course, you are one of those people who refuse to care for the desperate woman who for many reasons cannot go through with an unwanted pregnancy and will risk her life to go to a backalley to have an unsafe abortion where she could die!  That was one of the primary reasons why abortion became legal.


I am illogical because I go by science, instead of ideology ?


Oh wow, that is rich coming from you !!!!


----------



## impersonal (Mar 4, 2012)

KuzuRyuSen said:


> That is only in the most dire cases like ectopic pregnancy. However for cases like rape, unplanned pregnancies and such, abortion is actually frowned upon on.


Again, you're just making this up; at most this applies to whichever area you live in. That you claim that abortion is frowned upon _even in rape cases _makes me think you live in a fanatically religious area.

In most of Europe, doctors are fine with abortion rights. Just recently:


I don't know about any meaningful world-wide statistics. It is still likely that abortion is frowned upon in religious countries/states (eg. South America or the Bible Belt). It is also likely that people requesting abortions are often frowned upon almost everywhere (_"could have been more cautious to begin with, what's the pill and condoms for?"_). However, that doesn't mean people think they shouldn't decide to abort if that's the best solution, now that they are faced with that decision.

... And yeah, being a third-year pre-med is hardly compatible with being 18.


----------



## Doge (Mar 4, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Again, you're just making this up. Or you live in Texas. I don't know which.



And I guess this means you live in California?


----------



## Mintaka (Mar 4, 2012)

lvl80elitetaurenchieftain said:


> And I guess this means you live in California?


He lives in france.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 4, 2012)

Super Goob said:


> Bioness trying to be edgy.
> 
> Or Hitler. Something or another.



People always scapegoat Hitler as being the most evil man in history while completely forgetting many other leaders have done far worse and at the time what he was doing had considerable approval from the masses. While what Hitler did was horrible the actions of World War II did cause one of if not the biggest technological and information growth in human history. 

Also take careful notice of the wording of the topic title.

"Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say*"
*
It has a different meaning but should mean the same as 

"Abortion is no different from killing babies, experts say*"*

Something to think about.


----------



## Banhammer (Mar 4, 2012)

Babies in airplanes should be fifty six sweeks aborted


----------



## Bishop (Mar 4, 2012)

Banhammer said:


> Babies in airplanes should be fifty six sweeks aborted



Agreed


----------



## impersonal (Mar 4, 2012)

Mintaka said:


> He lives in france.



In the Netherlands actually.


----------



## Superstars (Mar 4, 2012)

Fruits Basket Fan said:


> Again, it did not actually provided scientific proof that life begins at conception !
> 
> You honestly going by ideology rather than science.  This is not the first time that pro-life people claim "references" without actually showing people HARD CORE scientific facts and graphs as to why they came to that conclusion only for them to claim, "it came from a prestigious university" (where even then, it cannot be taken seriously unless they provided actual facts instead of ideology).


What those official scientists documents states is the scientific facts from their studies on the development of a human life from conception. They are not stating ideals but plain observable facts. Here is more testimony from studies that back those sources up even more...For the Us Senate back in 1981 documents such facts...





> Comatose have all their major organs that defined it as human beings (did you miss that part where I said why an embryo is not considered a human yet?)......and they can survive outside the woman's body without being a parasite to the woman's body!


Did you miss the part where you stated that the human in the womb was not sentient so you claimed it was not human? So I showed how ridiculous your logic was by stating we should kill the comatose since they are not sentient but human too as you claim. That part of the post was address at the part of sentience.



> A full term fetus, while it needs to be taken care of, does not need to actually have the woman's body to survive like it did when it was an embryo (a non-sentimental parasitic patches of cells that lacks even the most basic human organs)!  A baby can be given to a nurse or someone else using baby formula by another instead of the woman who gave birth to it!  That is what it means that it is viable (it not longer needs the woman's physical body to survive and it can become its own person that it can nutrition without being an parasite to the person's physical body).


Yet that baby is still _dependant_ on someone else, for food, regardless if it is in or out of the mother. Just like the embryo [which you immorally call a parasite] is the foundation of every human being. It is the building blocks for human growth which is crucial for continuing stages of human development. Let me see you build a house without the foundation and I garauntee you, watch it fall.



> Abortion is only morally wrong to the deep religious, but the fact is that an embryo is not even human yet and during the time before viability, a woman has every right to decide whether she needs to get rid of the *pregnancy in the early stages or not*.  Because believe it or not, unlike the pro-life people, we consider the woman's feelings and well being over particles of cells which has yet to have most of its major organs and ability to feel or even think of anything that it is basically a parasite to the woman's body and because it is her body, she can decide what to do inside it before the point of viability (again, the point when the fetus is developed enough to be able to survive without needing the womans' physical body and has most of its human organs developed)!
> 
> This is why a woman gets to decide why she gets to have an abortion in the early stages, the embryo is not human yet and we need to consider the woman's well being if having an unwanted pregnancy will cause harm toward her mental, social, and even physical life.  Whereas, a fetus in its 5th or 6th month can survive without actually feeding on the woman's body and has most of its major organs that defined it a fully human and thus must be protected.
> 
> ...


The viablity argument; it is not logically sound. It doesn't matter whether the human life has to depend on the womans body or not. The fact is, inside the mother/depending on the mother's body, or outside of the body is a_ living human still in development._ It makes no difference stating the baby inside the mother is not human because it has no major organs so lets kill that humans development before it gets the organs for development.

Everyone knows how to create another life, sperm meeting the egg otherwise people wouldn't try it if they didn't want to have another life or get an abortion [kill another life] when they find out another life is inside of them because of their selfish reasons and foolish mistakes. This is what you are truly concerned about, not wanting anyone else telling you how you should live your life because it would basically change up sexual lifestyle.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 5, 2012)

> Everyone knows how to create another life, sperm meeting the egg otherwise people wouldn't try it if they didn't want to have another life or get an abortion [kill another life] when they find out another life is inside of them because of their selfish reasons and foolish mistakes.



It is not hard to procreate. That is, of course, no excuse for wanton procreation. It is so easy to procreate, in fact, that people so often procreate by accident. That is, of course, no excuse for wanton procreation. The act of procreating generally asks no advantageous talent, income or health, and is universally available. That is, of course, no excuse for wanton procreation. Nature has arranged insemination to be as pleasurable as humanly possible, and the biological urge to stimulate our genitals is arguably the most powerful chemical urge we experience in our existence. That is, of course, no excuse for wanton procreation. I'm not repeating this with irony. Everybody has heard this arguments, and everybody understands there are urges to procreate. They aren't excuses.

But righteous indignation isn't a solution. Even when we're just debating, it's not a successful, well, anything. The population at large can't control their abundance of resources to begin with. People eat too much despite having full control of not eating too much, putting their health at risk (and in turn endangering the livelihoods of people who are reliant on their health, like significant others or children). People are generally allowed quite a bit of irresponsibility as long as that irresponsibility isn't violent against another individual recognized with individual rights (which insemination does not qualify in current legislation). We are irresponsible with our environment, ourselves, our habits, and obviously our sex lives. We are irresponsible with our procreation and our numbers, and we are living in an unnatural system where we have no natural mediator keeping us competing and fit and compromising with any kind of sustaining ecosystem. The 'ecosystem' of every major city is not sustaining. It's not apocalyptic, but they are all struggling to find new compromises and new ways of approaching their issue. Men don't even have the chemical urge to procreate (or if they do, it remains unmeasured and elusive). They have the urge to stimulate their genitals, and they have their attractions to traits that predispose a successful mother and good genes. So the sexual urge has some roots in procreation, but that is not the urge, meaning men are not even 'wanting' procreation when engaging.

Our human problem is still figuring itself out. And things like contraceptives and abortions, as well as programs like adoption and welfare, are compromises acknowledging the general behaviors of people. I don't think people get themselves into these problems because they're callous, they get themselves into these problems because they think they can get away with it. And they're not foolish to hedge their bets. People can get away with it. People can have lots of sex while having an extremely minimized chance of insemination. Women can choose to abort. And I can't think back to any social situation in history where cutting off the available options has helped solve the problem. It seems rare, and I can't think of a circumstance when it has ever been successful. The only way these social issues grow out of bad habits is by _having options despite_, and then removing those options only when they are no longer necessary- not removing them when they are still absolutely necessary for the general public, and people are being deprived them out of some legislative contempt for what the engineering body has deemed irresponsible behavior.

People are getting pregnant who don't want to be pregnant, and hold that want over the life gestating inside them to the extent that they will abort it. And the life of the gestating newborn is fragile enough that it would be applicably impossible to prevent mothers from killing their newborns if they absolutely wished it; moreover, it would be demonstrably 'very difficult' to prove a woman miscarried intentionally, when there have been many habits throughout history of miscarrying in secret when abortion is illegal or has a social stigma. Therein lies the issue with outlawing abortion as murder. Even putting aside this (silly) argument that a gestating newborn should have individual rights trumping the mother's, women miscarry by accident, when there is no such thing as a murder that can occur with this level of accidence. Newborns can struggle just by the mother's stress levels and diet, and nowhere are we able to murder another individual by stressing out and drinking. It's a completely different situation owed its own nuance, and too many men are spending too much attention being possessive of gestations and too little time trying to understand, much less respect, the experience, sacrifice and choice of the mother. It is definably alien from every man; the relationship, the symbiosis, the sacrifice. We have our say, but it's amusing we have had 12 pages of passionate discussion without anybody giving a shit to link to any kind of testimony from any woman about anything to do with the experience of motherhood, whether for or against abortion. Apparently, they are beside our indiscriminately genderless points (he says with sarcasm).


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Mar 5, 2012)

Superstars said:


> What those official scientists documents states is the scientific facts from their studies on the development of a human life from conception. They are not stating ideals but plain observable facts. Here is more testimony from studies that back those sources up even more...For the Us Senate back in 1981 documents such facts...
> 
> 
> 
> ...








.....And once again you have IGNORED why the Comatose is different.....BECAUSE THEY ARE VIABLE AND HE/SHE IS THEIR OWN PERSON THAT IS NO LONGER A PARASITE TO THE WOMAN'S BODY LIKE AN EMBRYO!


Though to be fair, I think the Comatose should be put to sleep since they are never going to wake up....and keeping them up would just be cruel (unless they left a will saying otherwise).

This is why I mentioned they have the most of its major organs and able to live outside the woman's body without needing the actual body of the woman.

Are you really that dense and in denial that you have to keep denying science and keep using pro-life sites which uses ideology instead of facts?


And you wonder why overly religious people get a negative view......You keep repeating the same thing over and over and refuse to understand what viability means!


That is when the fetus can live outside the woman's body without it being dependent on the womb and physical body of the mother and by then it has most of its major organs that define it as human !


I repeated this twice, already!


And sorry, but abortion will continue to be legal and last I checked, we do not live in a theocracy that follows your bible which you cannot prove that God exists !

If you want to live by a theocratic form of government, then go to the Vatican.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 5, 2012)

Viability is complete bullshit. The comatose are not viable. The comatose are kept alive when they have a chance of waking up someday, _*because they have had a past life*_. They have friends, family, projects, they have developed their own personalities due to interactions with them, and they can pick all of this up when they come back to their senses. They're like anyone who is sound asleep: for a while they stop having personalities and feelings, but they're about to get all of this * back* just where they left it.

A fetus on the other hand has no past whatsoever; it just has a future. This means a fetus is not any different than the separate egg and sperm: it is mere potential, without any intrinsic value yet. What else happens at conception? The fusion of two pieces of DNA? Of course that is irrelevant.

I'm pretty sure superstar will recognize that his reason for valuing the fetus' life since conception is that, according to him, that is when it is granted a *soul*. Religious answers are the only ones that seem to justify his positions. The non-religious don't value people for their soul but for their mind, and that makes all the difference... A fetus doesn't have anything you'd call a mind (at least in the early stages).

(On the other hand, "viability" has no logical support whatsoever.)


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Mar 5, 2012)

Well, I do not know the other word to describe it since I just used what the US Supreme Court means with "viability"......Sorry.


----------



## Stripes (Mar 5, 2012)

This argument is old and pathetic.


----------



## wibisana (Mar 5, 2012)

it might be sound stupid

people: God I want a baby. please 
God: here but it's little defect.
people: please take it back. please. (kill the baby)

even if you dont believe in God it will be still pathetic 
babies are not goods


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Mar 5, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Again, you're just making this up; at most this applies to whichever area you live in. That you claim that abortion is frowned upon _even in rape cases _makes me think you live in a fanatically religious area.



I prefer the term, conservative.



impersonal said:


> In most of Europe, doctors are fine with abortion rights. Just recently:
> .



But none was said regarding their opinion regarding abortion. Nobody said anything regarding rape cases. In fact, what it actually stresses is about harmful pregnancies.



> "We are dealing here with a very small number of women at a time when their health is severely threatened.





impersonal said:


> ... And yeah, being a third-year pre-med is hardly compatible with being 18.



I started at 16. U mad?


----------



## Easley (Mar 5, 2012)

If the 'experts' can prove that the newborn is disabled, mentally and physically, with no chance of improvement, then I'd consider it a mercy killing. A broken individual is a burden for all concerned - the parents and the nonexistent life of the child.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Mar 5, 2012)

You better watch yourself. The Detroit 300 rolling on baby killers.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 5, 2012)

Bioness said:


> People always scapegoat Hitler as being the most evil man in history while completely forgetting many other leaders have done far worse and at the time what he was doing had considerable approval from the masses. While what Hitler did was horrible the actions of World War II did cause one of if not the biggest technological and information growth in human history.
> 
> Also take careful notice of the wording of the topic title.
> 
> ...



We've stepped up from promoting the slaughter of children, to defending Hitler.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 5, 2012)

> IgE. Immunoglobulin E is found on hypersensitivity reactions as well as parasitic infections. What causes hemolytic disease of the newborn is another subtype of immunoglobulin known as IgG since unlike the other antibodies, it can actually cross the placenta. The other immunoglobulins don't typically cross the placenta unless there are cases of placental leakage. That includes IgE.
> IgE promotes proliferation of a type of white blood cell known as eosinophil. In hematology, eosinophil count is used to asses parasitic infection. Since out of all the WBCs present in the blood, eosinophil is the one which is most directed against parasitic infections.
> In hematology, eosinophil count is used to asses parasitic infection. Since out of all the WBCs present in the blood, eosinophil is the one which is most directed against parasitic infections.



But IgG is still an antibody, meaning there are still cases when the mother's body does produce antibodies against her unborn child. You were particularly talking about IgE, but as you have been illustrating, there is a long list of antibodies the human body produces, and isolating IgE is still isolating a single response to prove a parasitic infection one way or another. Eosinophil count is 'one' 'assessment' of parasitic infection, when your initial comment suggested the unborn child could not be a parasite simply because mothers don't produce IgE against it. Which is misleading. And, by the sounds of it, untrue.



> Then name one.



This is where my unskilled background gets me into trouble. I'm going to keep asking you, because unfortunately you will have to provide the answer for both of us. Any statements of knowhow regarding me medical knowledge should be preceded by a silent "I'm under the impression that...". Given, well, 'that', aren't there numerous infections, diseases, parasites, and so on which confuse and corrupt the body's immune system, either diverting antibody production or hiding from it entirely? I'm surprised you seem disbelieving, because I didn't think I was pointing out something controversial (or debatable, or unlikely). The nature of dangerous infections hedges on their ability to get through our immune system. You're going to have to tell me, but this is my impression: your eosinophil count is used to 'assess' the likelihood of a parasite, rather than 'prove' a parasite indirectly, because there are some cases where IgE antibodies aren't easy measures for the presence of a parasite, since our bodies, like any working organism, are vulnerable to confusions and misdirection (cancer, for example, and the multitude of obstructions it causes).



> You are presuming that I am an American?
> 
> But then, it was my fault to say that "most doctors" without saying "in my country".



It was actually my fault for saying 'American', because I don't assume everybody is American. But university institutions under any version of a first world European identity aren't having discussions about whether or not they frown on abortions, simply because it has nothing to do with pre-med. Maybe I overstepped myself to immediately invalidate your education background, but maybe you overstepped yourself to suggest the general unspecified medical community 'frowns' at abortions. Even outside of the pre-med classes, and even outside of classes themselves, it's not even within a doctor's profession to decide whether or not he will encourage abortion or discourage abortion (hence all the controversy over some damn bill in some damn backwater giving hospitals the ability to legally mislead pregnancy mothers in order to discourage abortions). There just isn't a single circumstance in a professional capacity in which a doctor, professor, nurse, administrator- anyone, would give any student the notion, for any reason, that their profession frowns on abortions. It's neither here nor there.


----------



## Superstars (Mar 5, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> It is not hard to procreate. That is, of course, no excuse for wanton procreation. It is so easy to procreate, in fact, that people so often procreate by accident. That is, of course, no excuse for wanton procreation. The act of procreating generally asks no advantageous talent, income or health, and is universally available. That is, of course, no excuse for wanton procreation. Nature has arranged insemination to be as pleasurable as humanly possible, and the biological urge to stimulate our genitals is arguably the most powerful chemical urge we experience in our existence. That is, of course, no excuse for wanton procreation. I'm not repeating this with irony. Everybody has heard this arguments, and everybody understands there are urges to procreate. They aren't excuses.
> 
> But righteous indignation isn't a solution. Even when we're just debating, it's not a successful, well, anything. The population at large can't control their abundance of resources to begin with. People eat too much despite having full control of not eating too much, putting their health at risk (and in turn endangering the livelihoods of people who are reliant on their health, like significant others or children). People are generally allowed quite a bit of irresponsibility as long as that irresponsibility isn't violent against another individual recognized with individual rights (which insemination does not qualify in current legislation). We are irresponsible with our environment, ourselves, our habits, and obviously our sex lives. We are irresponsible with our procreation and our numbers, and we are living in an unnatural system where we have no natural mediator keeping us competing and fit and compromising with any kind of sustaining ecosystem. The 'ecosystem' of every major city is not sustaining. It's not apocalyptic, but they are all struggling to find new compromises and new ways of approaching their issue. Men don't even have the chemical urge to procreate (or if they do, it remains unmeasured and elusive). They have the urge to stimulate their genitals, and they have their attractions to traits that predispose a successful mother and good genes. So the sexual urge has some roots in procreation, but that is not the urge, meaning men are not even 'wanting' procreation when engaging.
> 
> ...


So what you are essentially saying is humans have problems, we got strong sexual urges to the point that we can't control oursleves and believe that things like abortions acknowledges these problems and can be a compromise to take human life?



			
				Fruits Basket Fan said:
			
		

> http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2..._embryo_is.php
> 
> 
> 
> .....And once again you have IGNORED why the Comatose is different.....BECAUSE THEY ARE VIABLE AND HE/SHE IS THEIR OWN PERSON THAT IS NO LONGER A PARASITE TO THE WOMAN'S BODY LIKE AN EMBRYO


Yet the comatose does not have sentience which was your argument in bringing up the comatose. And why did you post a blog and a site that isn't doing anything different from what you and others here are doing? Just posting words on why they think life doesn't begin at conception with no scientific evidence [like my links] has backing them up.



> Though to be fair, I think the Comatose should be put to sleep since they are never going to wake up....and keeping them up would just be cruel (unless they left a will saying otherwise).
> 
> This is why I mentioned they have the most of its major organs and able to live outside the woman's body without needing the actual body of the woman.
> 
> ...


Understand that I logically tore your viability argument to shreds, you know why? because you have yet to even _address_ my argument against the viability argument that you keep bringing up. 

I used scientific reports stating and explaining why life begins at conception, I even gave you documentation where prominent scientitsts even gave congress data concerning life at conception. Yet you ignore these and want to falsley bring up an attack on religion when no one has even brought it up but you? Instead of try ing to falsely label actually address my points and drop the pride.



			
				impersonal said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure superstar will recognize that his reason for valuing the fetus' life since conception is that, according to him, that is when it is granted a soul. Religious answers are the only ones that seem to justify his positions. The non-religious don't value people for their soul but for their mind, and that makes all the difference... A fetus doesn't have anything you'd call a mind (at least in the early stages).
> 
> (On the other hand, "viability" has no logical support whatsoever.)


I'm glad we can agree on the nonsense of the viabilty argument. Your points are valid and logically sound concerning it. However my argument is based on science concerning life beginning at conception and I have posted documentions showing such. And when you say "mind" of a individual it is essentially the soul and spirit of a person. These are things that can not be observed physically. We pretty much agree on those things as well.


----------



## reiatsuflow (Mar 5, 2012)

> So what you are essentially saying is humans have problems, we got strong sexual urges to the point that we can't control oursleves and believe that things like abortions acknowledges these problems and can be a compromise to take human life?




In so many words. I'm not trying to insulate my point- I just have a lot to say about this topic. Generally speaking, I have a healthy expectation of death, so I don't consider death a negation that is profound enough to fight against depending on the circumstances (ex. my concern is for the more developed life of the mother, up to a certain point in her pregnancy, and for certain reasons). For you, maybe death can never be 'reasoned', whereas for me it mostly can. I do have concern over the ability of the unborn child to feel pain, or suffer, but that's where my questions lie. Not with this kind of... myopic preciousness where the offense is purely because a life is no longer living, or has been prevented. On social issues I'm very sensitive to suffering, but can be insensitive to death.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 5, 2012)

wibisana said:


> it might be sound stupid
> 
> people: God I want a baby. please
> God: here but it's little defect.
> ...



Yeah babies aren't good at all, which is why male and females all shit themselves if they find that they have accidentally made a spawn.

We have birth control, condoms, morning after bills, vasectomies, tube tying surgeries, no one wants fucking babies, and those that do well we have technology and ways for them to get them as well. But if you want a baby you want a good baby, you want that baby to become something amazing because that child is a reflection of the parent. If you have a baby with some severe mental or physical disorder you can hear the dreams of the parents shattering and crashing into the ground.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Finally, anti-humanism is brought back in from the cold.

Human life in itself is worthless.
Human life receives a value by contributing to society.
Those that do not contribute and those that are a drain on societies resources, does not have a value and should therefor be eliminated. It's simple logic really, but most people can't see this because they are are blinded by "humanism" and a dated moral they have had forced down their throats since they were children.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 6, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Yeah babies aren't good at all, which is why male and females all shit themselves if they find that they have accidentally made a spawn.
> 
> We have birth control, condoms, morning after bills, vasectomies, tube tying surgeries, no one wants fucking babies, and those that do well we have technology and ways for them to get them as well. But if you want a baby you want a good baby, you want that baby to become something amazing because that child is a reflection of the parent. If you have a baby with some severe mental or physical disorder you can hear the dreams of the parents shattering and crashing into the ground.



What do you think about aborting a baby because it's homosexual?


----------



## skins (Mar 6, 2012)

Shima Tetsuo said:


> What do you think about aborting a baby because it's homosexual?



Since when is a homosexual a criteria for how a person contributes to society? O_o;;;


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 6, 2012)

That has nothing to do with my post, or the post that I replied to.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Shima Tetsuo said:


> That has nothing to do with my post, or the post that I replied to.



No, YOUR post has nothing to do with the post you replied to OR the topic we're discussing.

Homosexuals are contributing members of society, sexuality has nothing to do with it, nor is homosexuality a severe mental/physical handicap.


----------



## Sasori (Mar 6, 2012)

Not really. When you kill a baby you get the satisfaction of seeing it face to face when you end it's life.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 6, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> No, YOUR post has nothing to do with the post you replied to OR the topic we're discussing.
> 
> Homosexuals are contributing members of society, sexuality has nothing to do with it,



I said that contributions to society have nothing to do with my post. Learn to read.

Bio is talking about killing babies for no reason other than sheer disappointment over how badly they reflect their parents.


AfterGlow said:


> nor is homosexuality a severe mental/physical handicap.



Homosexuality _is_ a disorder, and if Bio thinks it's fine for a parent to kill a baby just because they're disappointed in it having a disorder, then homosexual babies must be equally fair game.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Shima Tetsuo said:


> I said that contributions to society have nothing to do with my post. Learn to read.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality _is_ a disorder, and if Bio thinks it's fine for a parent to kill a baby just because they're disappointed in it having a disorder, then homosexual babies must be equally fair game.



Your post has nothing to do with his post, so sod off. Nobody is interested in your off-topic bullshit. Mental/physical disorders are a drain on society, they need special treatment which costs money, while they are unable to contribute as much as people without disorders. Homosexual people can work and pay tax just as well as any heterosexual person, and THAT is the only thing that matters in this discussion. It's clear you haven't got a fucking clue what he's even talking about: seeing your child becoming a drain on society through mental/physical handicaps, not being an "embarrassment" because you disagree with the lifestyle choice.

Also, homosexuality is a disorder? I laugh at your ignorance; homosexuality is present in ALL mammal species and fills a specific function; the adoption and care-taking of orphans. 

It's clear you don't even know what a disorder is.


----------



## Amrun (Mar 6, 2012)

Shima's question is really interesting and totally relevant.

I don't agree that homosexuality is a disorder, but I agree that some parents would see it that way.  Having a child that is homosexual would crash and tumble many parents' dreams down the same way that having a child with Down's Syndrome would.

In addition, Bioness is gay.

Asking him to re-evaluate from that perspective is really apt and I'm interested to see how he feels about it.

That is the real basis of meaningful, content-conscious conversation.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Amrun said:


> Shima's question is really interesting and totally relevant.
> 
> I don't agree that homosexuality is a disorder, but I agree that some parents would see it that way.  Having a child that is homosexual would crash and tumble many parents' dreams down the same way that having a child with Down's Syndrome would.
> 
> ...



You are also missing the point, it's not up to the parents to kill their children for any reason they can think of, it's about killing babies that will drain resources; this is a purely anti-humanistic strain of thought, which this entire philosophical debate is based on.


----------



## Amrun (Mar 6, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> You are also missing the point, it's not up to the parents to kill their children for any reason they can think of, it's about killing babies that will drain resources; this is a purely anti-humanistic strain of thought, which this entire philosophical debate is based on.



That's NOT what Bioness was saying, and Shima was addressing BIONESS, not the thread/topic at large.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 6, 2012)

Oh, Amrun. My hero. 



AfterGlow said:


> Your post has nothing to do with his post, so sod off. Nobody is interested in your off-topic bullshit. Mental/physical disorders are a drain on society, they need special treatment which costs money, while they are unable to contribute as much as people without disorders. Homosexual people can work and pay tax just as well as any heterosexual person, and THAT is the only thing that matters in this discussion. It's clear you haven't got a fucking clue what he's even talking about: seeing your child becoming a drain on society through mental/physical handicaps, not being an "embarrassment" because you disagree with the lifestyle choice.
> 
> Also, homosexuality is a disorder? I laugh at your ignorance; homosexuality is present in ALL mammal species and fills a specific function; the adoption and care-taking of orphans.



I think that you need to go back and actually read the post that I quoted and replied to. 



AfterGlow said:


> It's clear you don't even know what a disorder is.



When a creature's reproductive system drives it to mate exclusively with creatures or objects which it can never successfully reproduce with, then that reproductive system is not functioning correctly as a reproductive system. It no longer works for its intended purpose.

If you can't comprehend how a malfunctioning system can be called disordered, then I'm afraid that you're the one who doesn't know what a disorder is.

Unless, of course, you think that semen is created for the purpose of inseminating something which lies hidden deep within the male anus?

You may as well say that sperm which can't swim, or locate eggs, aren't disordered. I'm quite sure that if you were trying to conceive a child, and your sperm were more interested in burrowing into each other than into the egg, you would need to see a doctor to treat this disorder.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Amrun said:


> That's NOT what Bioness was saying, and Shima was addressing BIONESS, not the thread/topic at large.



Except he was: "If you have a baby with some *severe mental or physical disorder* you can hear the dreams of the parents shattering and crashing into the ground."

His point is this child will never be able to become great and is doomed to be a waste of resources, a great shame for the parents.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Shima Tetsuo said:


> I think that you need to go back and actually read the post that I quoted and replied to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you even read what I wrote?

Homosexuality fills A FUNCTION; the care-taking of orphans, this is what homosexuality is meant for, same-sex couples are formed to take care of offspring that have lost their parents.

The mating habit is null and void in your reasoning because we have evolved beyond mating for the sake of producing offspring; higher level primates form and strengthen structural bonds within their community by sexual intercourse, which is why apes frequently engage in sexual intercourse with the same sex.


----------



## Amrun (Mar 6, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Except he was: "If you have a baby with some *severe mental or physical disorder* you can hear the dreams of the parents shattering and crashing into the ground."
> 
> His point is this child will never be able to become great and is doomed to be a waste of resources, a great shame for the parents.



I don't think that was his point at all.  And MY point is that I know several people off of the top of my head that view homosexuality as a severe mental disorder.

I wanted to hear BIONESS' thoughts on the the matter, not yours.

I don't care that you're utilitarian.  That's nice.  Talk about your own views instead of imposing them on other people.

Edit: Oh, and the purpose of homosexuality in the biological model is highly debated among experts. "Taking care of orphans" is not even a common suggestion among experts.  Stop talking about your opinion as if it is widely-accepted fact.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Amrun said:


> I don't think that was his point at all.  And MY point is that I know several people off of the top of my head that view homosexuality as a severe mental disorder.
> 
> I wanted to hear BIONESS' thoughts on the the matter, not yours.
> 
> I don't care that you're utilitarian.  That's nice.  Talk about your own views instead of imposing them on other people.



Actually, I'm an anti-humanist, but whatever.


----------



## Amrun (Mar 6, 2012)

You're describing utilitarian concepts.  I don't care what you call it.  The point is that you were EXTREMELY rude to Shima Tetsuo for absolutely no reason.  You were ascribing YOUR views to Bioness' and to the argument as a whole and that's not accurate.

Just because you don't care about Shima's question doesn't mean that no one does. Check your attitude at the door.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 6, 2012)

Afterglow you look like a clown.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Amrun said:


> You're describing utilitarian concepts.  I don't care what you call it.  The point is that you were EXTREMELY rude to Shima Tetsuo for absolutely no reason.  You were ascribing YOUR views to Bioness' and to the argument as a whole and that's not accurate.
> 
> Just because you don't care about Shima's question doesn't mean that no one does. Check your attitude at the door.



I'm describing anti-humanist concepts, ergo killing people who doesn't contribute to society and/or will become a drain on societies resources. I don't believe utilitarianism means it's ethically justifiable to kill people for not contributing, since the maximizing of happiness for as many people as possible is a pretty vague concept to begin with, as happiness is impossible to measure.

Also, I believe Bioness holds views similar to my own, which is why in his place I elaborated on the reasoning. Dragging in homosexuality has nothing to do with it, although sure, one could of course ask him about his view on it, but it will most likely produce a very similar response as the one I gave.

Also, I don't like Shima because he doesn't contribute shit. He spouts some vague nonsense in his posts and he doesn't bother to elaborate, instead attacking the views of others. I don't like moralists either, for that matter.

Derr, abortion is wrong, life is sacred, hurp my fucking durp.
I find such thoughts sickening, and I hold people with such views accountable for the fucked up state our planet is in, overpopulated and we're over-consuming resources, eradicating species for the sake of worthless humans.
What a joke.


----------



## Amrun (Mar 6, 2012)

You aren't very educated on utilitarianism, then.  I'll leave it at that.  And I don't give a darn so please don't tell me that you are, or whatever. I just don't care.

What views you believe Bioness holds is irrelevant.  You went off on Shima unfairly for posting "off topic" while you shit on the entire thread.  Bioness can answer for himself.

Other peoples' opinions are just as valid as your own.  I know, shocker, right?


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 6, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Homosexuality fills A FUNCTION; the care-taking of orphans, this is what homosexuality is meant for, same-sex couples are formed to take care of offspring that have lost their parents.



This is an irrational and baseless claim with no evidence to support it, and is possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. 

Homosexuals lack offspring, yes, and orphans lack parents, but there is nothing to suggest that this anything more than coincidence. Why would these things be related? There's a correlation, but where's the causal link? What is it about the existence of orphans that turns people gay just to make them look after them? Did god do it? Perhaps it was a fairy?

If your magical fairy god sent homosexuals down to earth to care for orphans, then why are they drawn to have sex with other men more often than they are drawn to look after children? Is a fascination with the male anus really such an  important part of the child-rearing process? Why aren't they just driven to look after kids, without any pointless anal distractions, if that's their main purpose? Why wouldn't the MFG just program _all_ people to care for orphans, without going to all that trouble to create the whole homoerotic thing?

And why are so many gays completely out of touch with the importance and value of children? Look at Bioness, for example. Does he seem like his grand purpose in life is to look after orphans? He's in here trying to convince everyone that slaughtering unwanted babies is perfectly acceptable, and that no one should care.

I think that there may be a hole in your theory faith-based beliefs.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Shima Tetsuo said:


> This is an irrational and baseless claim with no evidence to support it, and is possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read.
> 
> Homosexuals lack offspring, yes, and orphans lack parents, but there is nothing to suggest that this anything more than coincidence. Why would these things be related? There's a correlation, but where's the causal link? What is it about the existence of orphans that turns people gay just to make them look after them? Did god do it? Perhaps it was a fairy?
> 
> ...



Except studies has shown multiple instances of same-sex couples adopting orphans in nature and raising them together (it's especially common among birds). It's called evolution; specific traits are developed to fit a certain need. So yeah, suck it.

Also, you're confusing "biology" with "culture", as in you think gay people act a certain way because they are born that way, instead of being socialized into a certain behavior. You also seem to think homosexuals are less than humans, without any sort of purpose besides "taking care of children" bcause I stated that's a function homosexual couples have in nature, when we are a highly evolved species capable of reasoning and reflection.

Why are so many gays out of touch, durp durp.

Why are so many posters here so fucking ignorant about everything? Why are so many men uninterested in caring for children, while some aren't? 

Pick up a fucking social & cultural studies book some time in your life, it will do you good.


----------



## Amrun (Mar 6, 2012)

Once again, AfterGlow, stop presenting your opinions as fact. There are many controversial opinions held by authorities, and this orphan one is one I have NEVER heard before.

Population control has its own little following and is the model I personally subscribe to.  Orphan raising?  Maybe there's a scholar or two that believes this, but they're definitely not in the majority.


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 6, 2012)

I notice that none of my points were actually addressed in that aimless rant full of cliches. Shocking. 

Sodomy's relevance to orphan-raising will eternally remain shrouded in mystery.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Amrun said:


> Once again, AfterGlow, stop presenting your opinions as fact. There are many controversial opinions held by authorities, and this orphan one is one I have NEVER heard before.
> 
> Population control has its own little following and is the model I personally subscribe to.  Orphan raising?  Maybe there's a scholar or two that believes this, but they're definitely not in the majority.



Yeah, well help yourself to some books then.

From Biological Exuberance



Same-sex pairs in many species (especially birds) raise young together. Not only are they competent parents, homosexual pairs sometimes actually exceed heterosexual ones in the number of eggs they lay, the size of their nests, or the skill and extent of their parenting.

How are such animals able to have offspring in the first place if they are in homosexual associations? Many different strategies are used, including several in which one or both partners are the biological parent(s) of the young they raise together. The most common parenting arrangement of this type is found in lesbian pairs of several Full, Tern, and Goose species: one or both female partners copulate with a male to fertilize her eggs. No bonding or long-term association develops between the female and the male (who is essentially a "sperm donor" to the homosexual pair), and the youngsters are then jointly raised by both females without any assistance from a male parent.


Two male Harbor Seals "pair-rolling" (a courtship and sexual behavior) Illustration by John Megahan, ? 1999. Because female birds can lay eggs regardless of whether they are fertilized, however, each partner in a lesbian pair usually contributes a full clutch of eggs to their nest even if she hasn't mated with a male. As a result, female homosexual pairs often lay what are called supernormal clutches, that is, double the number of eggs usually found in nests of heterosexual pairs.

Sometimes two female animals who already have offspring join forces, bonding together and raising their young as a same-sex family unit (among mammals, female coparents may even suckle each other's young): this occurs in Grizzly Bears, Red Foxes, Warthogs, Dwarf Cavies, Lesser Scaup Ducks, and Sage Grouse. Notably, heterosexual pairs do not occur in these species, and most offspring are otherwise raised by single females.

In some species, a nonbreeding animal bonds with a (single) breeding animal and helps parent its young: this occurs in Squirrel Monkeys, Northern Elephant Seals, Jackdaws (where a widowed female with young may pair with a single female), and Greater Rheas (where one male may help another incubate his eggs and then raise the young together.)

In most such joint parenting arrangements (as opposed to homosexual mated pairs), there is not necessarily any overt courtship or sexual activity between the bonded coparents, although is some species (e.g. Squirrel Monkeys, Northern Elephant Seals, Emus, Sage Grouse), homosexual activity does occur in contexts other than between coparents. Still other birds (e.g., Greylag Geese, Common Gulls, Oystercatchers) may form bisexual parenting trios, mating with the opposite-sexed partner(s) in their association while maintaining homosexual and heterosexual bonds simultaneously, with all three birds then raising the resulting offspring together. A variation on this arrangement in Black Swans involves a sort of "surrogate motherhood": established male homosexual pairs sometimes associate temporarily with a female, mating with her to father their own offspring. Once the eggs are laid, however, they chase her away and raise the cygnets on her own as a homosexual couple.

*In a number of cases, homosexual pairs raise young without being the biological parents of the offspring they care for. Some same-sex pairs adopt young: two female Northern Elephant Seals occasionally adopt and coparent an orphaned pup, while male Hooded Warblers and Black-headed Gulls may adopt eggs or entire nests that have been abandoned by females, and pairs of male Cheetahs occasionally look after lost cubs.*

Sometimes female birds "donate" eggs to homosexual couples through a process known as parasitism: in many birds, females lay eggs in nests other than their own, leaving the parenting duties to the "host" couple. This occurs both within the same species, and (more commonly) across species, and usually involves heterosexual hosts. Male pairs of Hooded Warblers, however, sometimes receive eggs from Brown-headed Cowbirds (and possibly also from females of their own species) in this way; within-species parasitism may also provide eggs for male pairs of Black-headed Gulls and female pairs in Roseate and Caspian Terns.

The opposite situation is thought to occur in Ring-billed Gulls: researchers believe that some homosexually paired females actually lay eggs in nests belonging to heterosexual pairs. Finally, some birds in same-sex pairs take over or "kidnap" nests from heterosexual pairs (e.g., in Caspian and Roseate Terns, Black-headed Gulls); homosexual pairs in captivity also raise foster young provided to them.

In a detailed study of parental behavior by female pairs of Ring-billed Gulls, scientists found no significant differences in quality of care provided by homosexual as opposed to heterosexual parents. They concluded that there was not anything that male Ring-billed Gull parents provided that two females could not offer equally well.

This case is not exceptional: homosexual parents are generally as good at parenting as heterosexual ones. Examples of same-sex pairs successfully raising young have been documented in at least 20 species, and in a few cases, homosexual couples actually appear to have an advantage over heterosexual ones. Pairs of male Black Swans, for example, are often able to acquire the largest and best-quality territories for raising young because of their combined strength. Such fathers -- dubbed "formidable" adversaries by one scientist -- consequently tend to be more successful at raising offspring than most heterosexual pairs. And in many species in which single parenting is the rule (because there is no heterosexual pair-bonding), same-sex pairs provide a unique opportunity for young to be raised by two parents (e.g., Squirrel Monkeys, Grizzly Bears, Lesser Scaup Ducks.) Moreover, in some Gulls, female pairs are consigned (for a variety of reasons) to less than optimal territories, yet they still successfully raise young: in many cases they compensate by investing more parental effort -- and are more dutiful in caring for their chicks -- than male-female pairs.

There are exceptions, of course: some female pairs of Gulls, for instance, tend to lay smaller eggs and raise fewer chicks (although this is also true of heterosexual trios attending supernormal clutches), while same-sex parents in Jackdaws, Canada Geese, and Oystercatchers may experience parenting difficulties such as egg breakage or nonsynchronization of incubation duties. By and large, though, same-sex couples are competent and occasionally even superior parents.



Stop presenting your total ignorance on the subject as fact while discrediting facts as "my opinions".


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 6, 2012)

From killing babies to homosexuals.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 6, 2012)

Why whenever I leave a thread for a few hours my name always seems to come up in a debate.



skins said:


> Since when is a homosexual a criteria for how a person contributes to society? O_o;;;



It isn't.



AfterGlow said:


> You are also missing the point, it's not up to the parents to kill their children for any reason they can think of, it's about killing babies that will drain resources; this is a purely anti-humanistic strain of thought, which this entire philosophical debate is based on.





Amrun said:


> I wanted to hear BIONESS' thoughts on the the matter, not yours.



Amrun sorry to disappoint but AfterGlow is right in what my thought process was. I think if a child will be nothing but a drain on society then it is better to not have the baby or if too late remove the baby from society.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 6, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Except studies has shown multiple instances of same-sex couples adopting orphans in nature and raising them together (it's especially common among birds). It's called evolution; specific traits are developed to fit a certain need.


Not trying to get in this discussion, but can you give me the links to some of these articles or some books or some studies on this please?


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Not trying to get in this discussion, but can you give me the links to some of these articles or some books or some studies on this please?



I'd love to, but the book isn't available on Google Books. Are the sources listed (aside from the book itself) alright? I'm majoring in social anthropology, and cross-cultural studies between animals and humans aren't given that much of a focus, although they exist as part of it.

These are the books which referenced in Biological Exuberance - Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl. I believe most of it is research carried out by the author and his peers, as this is pretty much the first real research and in-depth studies of animal homosexuality.

Green, Richard (2002). "Is pedophilia a mental disorder?", Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31 (6), 467-471. Citing: De Waal, F. (1990). "Sociosexual behavior used for tension regulation in all age and sex combinations among Bonobos." In J. Feierman (Ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 379?393)

deMause, Lloyd (2002). The Emotional Life of Nations, chapter 8.

Rind, B., Bauserman, R. and Tromovitch, P. (2000). Science versus orthodoxy: Anatomy of the congressional condemnation of a scientific article and reflections on remedies for future ideological attacks, chapter 8.

Rind, Bruce (2009). "Social Response to Age-Gap Sex Involving Minors: Empirical, Historical, Cross-Cultural, and Cross-Species Considerations." Paper presented at the "Good sex, bad sex: Sex law, crime and ethics" conference in Budapest, Hungary, May 4 to 6, 2009.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 6, 2012)

Thanks! I have two of those books already too.


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 6, 2012)

Bishop said:


> Thanks! I have two of those books already too.



Nice 

I ordered Biological Exuberance a while back (felt I needed the entire book and just not the bits and pieces we can download as they are relevant to class), as I have in the past been an outspoken protester against homosexuality, coming from a strictly religious home. In my youth, I was also an outspoken racist, before "coming to my senses", I guess I am somewhat studying anthropology because I am ashamed of who I was and I want to understand the core principles of ethnocentrism and racism to be able to debate against it more effectively. 
I know, it's kind of silly. I just no longer wanted to judge a man by the color of his skin, but instead of what is in him.

Sure, I am an anti-humanist, but I would never judge the worth of anybody based on his/her ethnicity or their gender.


----------



## Dei (Mar 6, 2012)

There are still people dumb enough to consider abortion immoral?


----------



## skins (Mar 6, 2012)

Deiboom said:


> There are still people dumb enough to consider abortion immoral?



I could link you to about a dozen news reports in America of people who are trying to make Abortion as uncomfortable, invasive, and hard to access as possible, but here's one just for tasting:


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 6, 2012)

Deiboom said:


> There are still people dumb enough to consider abortion immoral?



Assuming you consider infantacide immoral, at what point during the pregnancy do you regard moral opposition to abortion as 'dumb'?

Anyway, consistent majorities of Americans consider abortion, in most instances*, to be immoral (this is separate from whether or not people support legal abortion in most instances).

*'Most instances' being defined as outside of rape, i*c*st, physical health of the mother, and severe birth defects.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 6, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> In my youth, I was also an outspoken racist, before "coming to my senses"
> 
> Sure, I am an anti-humanist, but I would never judge the worth of anybody based on his/her ethnicity or their gender.



Most anti-humanists that I've met (especially the ones who think 'worthless' human lives should be eliminated) tend to be racist.

Its nice that you no longer include people into your genocidal fantasies strictly on the basis of ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation, but you still have a long way to go-even most sociopaths recognize intellectually that society couldn't function if everyone shared their 'rational' disregard for any human life that does not materially benefit them in some way.

But hey, I have severe OCD, so I guess you could just write me off as one of those unworthies that should be killed.


----------



## skins (Mar 7, 2012)

lowtech redneck said:


> Assuming you consider infantacide immoral, at what point during the pregnancy do you regard moral opposition to abortion as 'dumb'?
> 
> Anyway, consistent majorities of Americans consider abortion, in most instances*, to be immoral (this is separate from whether or not people support legal abortion in most instances).
> 
> *'Most instances' being defined as outside of rape, i*c*st, physical health of the mother, and severe birth defects.



I'm aware that I'm not the person you're addressing, but I wished to comment on your post nonetheless.

You've disregarded _mental_ health of the mother in your post. I knew a person with, at the time, severe social anxiety and depression, and she could not take birth control at the time because it interfered with her medication (not sure how that worked but I digress) and had to rely on other means of birth control such as condoms and monitoring her monthly cycle as best as she could to make sure she didn't have sex while fertile. She got pregnant twice, and aborted twice. She completely lost it during her second pregnancy and said if she wasn't sterilised right there and then, she would kill herself and her unborn child for 'good measure'.

At 23, she had the second abortion, and was sterilised. She has one child of her own (born before both abortions) and is now mentally stable, happy and healthy. I asked her if she regretted the abortions, and she said no, because she said if she had of given birth to either kids at the time, it would have sent her spiraling down further into her depression and probably would've killed herself, leaving her child motherless and her husband widowed.

tl;dr - do not misjudge the power that mental conditions hold over unstable mothers. Would you really deny an abortion to the woman I just described?


----------



## AfterGlow (Mar 7, 2012)

lowtech redneck said:


> Most anti-humanists that I've met (especially the ones who think 'worthless' human lives should be eliminated) tend to be racist.
> 
> Its nice that you no longer include people into your genocidal fantasies strictly on the basis of ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation, but you still have a long way to go-even most sociopaths recognize intellectually that society couldn't function if everyone shared their 'rational' disregard for any human life that does not materially benefit them in some way.
> 
> But hey, I have severe OCD, so I guess you could just write me off as one of those unworthies that should be killed.



Then they are retarded, a humans worth is not deemed by his/her gender, sexual orientation or race, it is judged by how much he/she can contribute to society.

Does your OCD keep you from working and paying taxes?
Most likely not.


----------



## Banhammer (Mar 7, 2012)

pretty sure killing a citizen is a crime


----------



## Amrun (Mar 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Then they are retarded, a humans worth is not deemed by his/her gender, sexual orientation or race, it is judged by how much he/she can contribute to society.
> 
> Does your OCD keep you from working and paying taxes?
> Most likely not.



You should probably watch the use of "retarded" when advocating that retarded babies should be killed.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 7, 2012)

skins said:


> tl;dr - do not misjudge the power that mental conditions hold over unstable mothers.
> 
> Would you really deny an abortion to the woman I just described?



I do not (and because of my own experiences, cannot) disregard the effects of mental disorders on anyone, particularly under prolonged stressful circumstances and conditions.

Yes; suicide is not a deterministic or even an exceptionally likely outcome of either clinical depression or post-partum depression, and her child could be put up for adoption if she decides that her mental state would make her an unsafe mother.  If I adopted such a standard, I would effectively have to support the legal terminination of what I consider to be human life in virtually all instances, as potential mental health concerns can-and would-be used to justify abortion regardless of actual circumstances.

Incidentally, I don't personally support abortion for serious but non-terminal birth defects (like Down Syndrome); I was merely listing circumstances where (if my memory of the various surveys is correct) a majority of respondents are not morally opposed to abortion, regardless of their legal position or whether they would have the abortion themselves.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 7, 2012)

AfterGlow said:


> Does your OCD keep you from working and paying taxes?
> Most likely not.



If I had been born during an era in which OCD was not a recognized mental disorder with fairly effective treatments (there are no cures), the severity of my case would likely have led to my being misdiagnosed as schizophrenic and institutionalized* for life, my condition slowly deteriorating like that of Howard Hughes at the end of his life.

*Or, in your ideal world, killed off.


----------



## skins (Mar 8, 2012)

lowtech redneck said:


> I do not (and because of my own experiences, cannot) disregard the effects of mental disorders on anyone, particularly under prolonged stressful circumstances and conditions.
> 
> Yes; suicide is not a deterministic or even an exceptionally likely outcome of either clinical depression or post-partum depression, and her child could be put up for adoption if she decides that her mental state would make her an unsafe mother.  If I adopted such a standard, I would effectively have to support the legal terminination of what I consider to be human life in virtually all instances, as potential mental health concerns can-and would-be used to justify abortion regardless of actual circumstances.
> 
> Incidentally, I don't personally support abortion for serious but non-terminal birth defects (like Down Syndrome); I was merely listing circumstances where (if my memory of the various surveys is correct) a majority of respondents are not morally opposed to abortion, regardless of their legal position or whether they would have the abortion themselves.



Except you're assuming that I'm American and that adoption exists in my country. It no longer does. 

So what then?


----------



## impersonal (Mar 8, 2012)

KuzuRyuSen said:


> I prefer the term, conservative.


You can be a conservative without being deeply religious, which people in your area obviously are. Because, once again, the only popular moral arguments against early abortions are religious in nature. Not conservative in nature. There's bound to be a pretty good correlation, for example, between being against abortion and being a creationist. And not just in the US.



KuzuRyuSen said:


> *But none was said regarding their opinion regarding abortion.* Nobody said anything regarding rape cases. In fact, what it actually stresses is about harmful pregnancies.



It's about *the legal limit of abortion*. So here's the _abortion_ part. And they *voted* against shortening it. So here's the _opinion_ part. It stands to reason that if doctors were against abortion, they would try to limit its application as much as possible, rather than keep it an option for as long as possible. It is unbelievable that you would try to dispute such obvious evidence.

For record, here's the link I had posted, as a counter-argument to KuzuRyuSen's unsupported assertion that doctors (based on experience in his area, which he has kept secret) usually are against abortion:



> Doctors have rejected calls for the British Medical Association to start campaigning for a cut in the legal time limit for abortion from 24 to 20 weeks.
> (...)


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Mar 8, 2012)

As expected, the question could not even be addressed.

Nazis aren't big on logic, homosexual Nazis even less so.


----------



## Lawrence33 (Mar 8, 2012)

I agree with you it's a valid point.
__________________


----------



## KuzuRyuSen (Mar 8, 2012)

reiatsuflow said:


> But IgG is still an antibody, meaning there are still cases when the mother's body does produce antibodies against her unborn child. You were particularly talking about IgE, but as you have been illustrating, there is a long list of antibodies the human body produces, and isolating IgE is still isolating a single response to prove a parasitic infection one way or another. Eosinophil count is 'one' 'assessment' of parasitic infection, when your initial comment suggested the unborn child could not be a parasite simply because mothers don't produce IgE against it. Which is misleading. And, by the sounds of it, untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where my unskilled background gets me into trouble. I'm going to keep asking you, because unfortunately you will have to provide the answer for both of us. Any statements of knowhow regarding me medical knowledge should be preceded by a silent "I'm under the impression that...". Given, well, 'that', aren't there numerous infections, diseases, parasites, and so on which confuse and corrupt the body's immune system, either diverting antibody production or hiding from it entirely? I'm surprised you seem disbelieving, because I didn't think I was pointing out something controversial (or debatable, or unlikely). The nature of dangerous infections hedges on their ability to get through our immune system. You're going to have to tell me, but this is my impression: your eosinophil count is used to 'assess' the likelihood of a parasite, rather than 'prove' a parasite indirectly, because there are some cases where IgE antibodies aren't easy measures for the presence of a parasite, since our bodies, like any working organism, are vulnerable to confusions and misdirection (cancer, for example, and the multitude of obstructions it causes).



If you still want to know my answers on these statements then feel free to pm me with regards to your questions once again and I'll be more than happy to answer you. Quite frankly this is getting out of hand.

*@impersonal*: Well played. I concede.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 8, 2012)

skins said:


> Except you're assuming that I'm American and that adoption exists in my country. It no longer does.
> 
> So what then?



I was assuming that you're Australian...

Why on earth would adoption no longer exist in Australia?

In any event, legalize it.


----------



## skins (Mar 8, 2012)

lowtech redneck said:


> I was assuming that you're Australian...
> 
> Why on earth would adoption no longer exist in Australia?
> 
> In any event, legalize it.



Because it was no longer managable. It's not illegal, it was simply recognised as an extremely broken system that adds no real value to a child's life. Foster Care is still around though. Private adoption also exists, so people who know someone who wants to adopt can opt to do so. But public orphanages and such no longer exist, and haven't for almost 20 years.

I'm starting to wonder if you really have any idea of what goes on with adoption, especially if you're pointing to it being an alternative to abortion. I sugest you look up how many kids commit suicide in the system, come out mentally unstable as adults, who wish they were dead (over half) and so on and so forth.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 8, 2012)

skins said:


> Because it was no longer managable. It's not illegal, it was simply recognised as an extremely broken system that adds no real value to a child's life. Foster Care is still around though. Private adoption also exists, so people who know someone who wants to adopt can opt to do so. But public orphanages and such no longer exist, and haven't for almost 20 years.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if you really have any idea of what goes on with adoption, especially if you're pointing to it being an alternative to abortion. I sugest you look up how many kids commit suicide in the system, come out mentally unstable as adults, who wish they were dead (over half) and so on and so forth.



From what I've gathered, Australia has an irrational prejudice towards adoption as a result of the 'stolen generations' fiasco.  Would you care to elaborate on the whole 'adds no real value to a child's life' thing?  It seems more than a little insulting to families with adopted children (including several among my extended family).  The problems you cite are more characteristic of the foster care system (which has some very good people, but also some very bad people, not to mention many children who are psychologically damaged before being abandoned or forced into the foster care system later in childhood, rather than given up for adoption upon birth) than within families with adopted children.  Healthy newborns in developed countries have pretty good chances.

In any event, I consider life to be better than death, so I have no problems recommending adoption* as an alternative to abortion, despite the problems within the system.

*Though I would recommend that the biological mothers seek out adoptive parents during the pregnancy-there are numerous organizations that help with that.


----------



## skins (Mar 10, 2012)

lowtech redneck said:


> From what I've gathered, Australia has an irrational prejudice towards adoption as a result of the 'stolen generations' fiasco.  Would you care to elaborate on the whole 'adds no real value to a child's life' thing?  It seems more than a little insulting to families with adopted children (including several among my extended family).  The problems you cite are more characteristic of the foster care system (which has some very good people, but also some very bad people, not to mention many children who are psychologically damaged before being abandoned or forced into the foster care system later in childhood, rather than given up for adoption upon birth) than within families with adopted children.  Healthy newborns in developed countries have pretty good chances.
> 
> In any event, I consider life to be better than death, so I have no problems recommending adoption* as an alternative to abortion, despite the problems within the system.
> 
> *Though I would recommend that the biological mothers seek out adoptive parents during the pregnancy-there are numerous organizations that help with that.



It wasn't meant as an insult towards people who are adopted, so sorry if it seemed that way. I digress however; there is a great deal of statistics taken by social workers, medical journals and such that show that the majority of children who remained in the adoption system (as in, were not adopted out as babies, which in America at least is apparently less than 3% ) suffer from psycological damage. 12% attempt suicide, over half wish they'd never been born. Those who are taken out of the system when they hit adulthood still suffer from psycological problems as a result.

While you may think it's preferable to live over death, I think that should be a choice of the individual rather than the government. Outlawing abortion will not make the problems that cause abortion to be nessacary go away.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 10, 2012)

skins said:


> Because it was no longer managable. It's not illegal, it was simply recognised as an extremely broken system that adds no real value to a child's life. Foster Care is still around though. Private adoption also exists, so people who know someone who wants to adopt can opt to do so. But public orphanages and such no longer exist, and haven't for almost 20 years.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if you really have any idea of what goes on with adoption, especially if you're pointing to it being an alternative to abortion. I sugest you look up how many kids commit suicide in the system, come out mentally unstable as adults, who wish they were dead (over half) and so on and so forth.



Are you sure about abortion not being possible anymore in Australia? I couldn't find a source for it. Do you have any evidence?


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 10, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Are you sure about abortion not being possible anymore in Australia? I couldn't find a source for it. Do you have any evidence?



He was talking about adoption.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 10, 2012)

skins said:


> I digress however; there is a great deal of statistics taken by social workers, medical journals and such that show that the majority of children who remained in the adoption system (as in, were not adopted out as babies, which in America at least is apparently less than 3% ) suffer from psycological damage. 12% attempt suicide, over half wish they'd never been born. Those who are taken out of the system when they hit adulthood still suffer from psycological problems as a result.
> 
> While you may think it's preferable to live over death, I think that should be a choice of the individual rather than the government. Outlawing abortion will not make the problems that cause abortion to be nessacary go away.



3% of all total live births are adopted in the United States, not out of all live births eligible for adoption.  Most children in the foster care system are not eligible for adoption, being older children taken away from what authorities considered to be unsafe households.  

And I think the individuals in question are killed rather than given a choice; that's the point, and the crux of the disagreement.


----------



## skins (Mar 10, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Are you sure about abortion not being possible anymore in Australia? I couldn't find a source for it. Do you have any evidence?






It's not that it isn't _possible_ anymore, it's just really really rare. You can adopt from other countries, but as you can see from the statistics, under 100 kids get adopted locally.



lowtech redneck said:


> 3% of all total live births are adopted in the United States, not out of all live births eligible for adoption.  Most children in the foster care system are not eligible for adoption, being older children taken away from what authorities considered to be unsafe households.
> 
> And I think the individuals in question are killed rather than given a choice; that's the point, and the crux of the disagreement.



The crux of this arguement is that newborns are killed after being born, but should have never been compared to abortion. For one, a newborn baby born full term has been completely developed. The abortion cutoff limit is 24 weeks in most countries because it has been scientifically shown that after that, the fetus is too developed and the woman may as well give birth.

Suffice to say, 52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy. This means that 89% of abortions occur before the second trimester. 

So comparing abortion to infantcide is quite frankly, ridiculous.

As for 'giving them a chance', are you, and others who are against abortion, going to come up with the $200,000 that it costs to raise a child to age of 18 on adverage to every single expectant mother you refuse to let have an abortion, in order to give their unborn child a chance?

Probably not.


----------



## lowtech redneck (Mar 10, 2012)

skins;42332759The crux of this arguement is that newborns are killed after being born said:
			
		

> Almost no one (aside from a few probable trolls in this thread) views infants as anything less than human life, and after birth there is no need to balance one individual's right to life with another individual's right to physical liberty.  Our back-and-forth has had nothing to do with infantacide (none from my end, at least).  I'm perfectly capable of understanding why and how reasonable people can disagree on abortion; my original post was in response to someone demonstrating an arrogant and disdainful close-mindedness in that respect, so I informed him that he was calling a majority of Americans (as far as personal moral convictions are concerned) 'dumb', and challenged him to define the criteria through which he determined moral opposition to abortion to be 'dumb'.


----------



## impersonal (Mar 10, 2012)

lowtech redneck said:


> He was talking about adoption.



Yeah, I put down "abortion" due to the topic of this thread, but I meant adoption as well. Anyway, it is, indeed still possible to adopt in Australia; so it still can be an alternative option to abortion.



> Almost no one (aside from a few probable trolls in this thread) views infants as anything less than human life


Lots of things are "human life"... That doesn't mean all of them are equal in value. A fertilized egg is "human life", but it does not deserve the respect that a 3 months old fetus gets, or a 6 months-old, or a newborn, or a 3 years old kid.

The main point of the authors of the study is that abortion on the 8th month and a half, and killing a newborn, are very similar things. Birth does not give any additional moral worth to the baby.


----------



## skins (Mar 10, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Yeah, I put down "abortion" due to the topic of this thread, but I meant adoption as well. Anyway, it is, indeed still possible to adopt in Australia; so it still can be an alternative option to abortion.



But that mindset is exactly why other countries have issues with their adoption systems. Too many people get convinced that adoption is a cop out for an unwanted child which leads to overflowing of the adoption systems.

The way it is in Australia is best; there are very few adoptions which means those kids up for adoption actually stand a chance of _being_ adopted in the first place. That, and those kids still in the system (foster care) actually have more money allocated to each in terms of funds to raise them, schooling and such.

Currently in America there are so many kids up for adoption that the numbers combined with other factors, render the system so broken it's apprently (according to a social worker friend of mine) extremely difficult to even adopt a kid in the first place.

And you think that it's _viable_ option instead of abortion? It isn't, and it never will be.


----------



## HolyDemon (Mar 10, 2012)

Shima Tetsuo said:


> As expected, the question could not even be addressed.
> 
> Nazis aren't big on logic, homosexual Nazis even less so.



Refusing to address a question has nothing to do with logic. 

It merely implies either a lack of interest, or inability to answer said question.


----------



## TheSweetFleshofDeath (Mar 10, 2012)

The thing I don't get is why a women should be forced to let someone else use her body if she deosn't consent to it.    That's essentially what a fetus is doing.

Yeah, and adoption sucks.  I've heard plenty more horror stories.  Pretending that it's a _good _alternative would only be viable if you pretended the rare success stories were the norm.


----------

