Not wholly, just degrees of arbitrary.Jay wrote:
Any line drawing is wholly arbitrary.Turquoise wrote:
I just don't get why people give a fuck about conception. For the first few months, the fetus is pretty simplistic and doesn't really resemble a fully grown baby.
A zygote is like a glorified tumor.
I understand when people want to limit things later during the process, but to draw the line at conception is just dumb, really.
Meh.Turquoise wrote:
Not wholly, just degrees of arbitrary.Jay wrote:
Any line drawing is wholly arbitrary.Turquoise wrote:
I just don't get why people give a fuck about conception. For the first few months, the fetus is pretty simplistic and doesn't really resemble a fully grown baby.
A zygote is like a glorified tumor.
I understand when people want to limit things later during the process, but to draw the line at conception is just dumb, really.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Works for me. As I said, I really don't care what becomes of the fetus. I'm merely explaining that line drawing makes more sense than saying "no abortion no matter what" or the tired "life starts at conception" bullshit.lowing wrote:
Where is that line drawn turqouise?Turquoise wrote:
I just don't get why people give a fuck about conception. For the first few months, the fetus is pretty simplistic and doesn't really resemble a fully grown baby.
A zygote is like a glorified tumor.
I understand when people want to limit things later during the process, but to draw the line at conception is just dumb, really.
At 25 weeks the fetus has brain activity, does that mean at 24 weeks and 6 days and 23 hours you are good to go for abortion because some dipshit just changed the criteria for life to be defined as being conscious now?
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if they allowed it up to birth, to be honest. Why? Because it's not my decision. Someone else gets to deal with that shit, and if I actually had to make a decision like that, I would definitely prefer that the government stay out of the mess.
Well, as I said, as long as we agree on what is happening. We are terminating life. The rest is a matter of reason and justification and morality.Turquoise wrote:
Works for me. As I said, I really don't care what becomes of the fetus. I'm merely explaining that line drawing makes more sense than saying "no abortion no matter what" or the tired "life starts at conception" bullshit.lowing wrote:
Where is that line drawn turqouise?Turquoise wrote:
I just don't get why people give a fuck about conception. For the first few months, the fetus is pretty simplistic and doesn't really resemble a fully grown baby.
A zygote is like a glorified tumor.
I understand when people want to limit things later during the process, but to draw the line at conception is just dumb, really.
At 25 weeks the fetus has brain activity, does that mean at 24 weeks and 6 days and 23 hours you are good to go for abortion because some dipshit just changed the criteria for life to be defined as being conscious now?
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if they allowed it up to birth, to be honest. Why? Because it's not my decision. Someone else gets to deal with that shit, and if I actually had to make a decision like that, I would definitely prefer that the government stay out of the mess.
Well, my argument in this thread has simply been that whether you draw the line at 25 weeks or at conception, there's no real difference. One simply helps the person doing the terminating to sleep at night and gives them a bit of justification. If I was in that situation, it wouldn't change my decision no matter where the line might be drawn. If it's going to seriously fuck up your life to have a kid, have at it.Turquoise wrote:
Works for me. As I said, I really don't care what becomes of the fetus. I'm merely explaining that line drawing makes more sense than saying "no abortion no matter what" or the tired "life starts at conception" bullshit.lowing wrote:
Where is that line drawn turqouise?Turquoise wrote:
I just don't get why people give a fuck about conception. For the first few months, the fetus is pretty simplistic and doesn't really resemble a fully grown baby.
A zygote is like a glorified tumor.
I understand when people want to limit things later during the process, but to draw the line at conception is just dumb, really.
At 25 weeks the fetus has brain activity, does that mean at 24 weeks and 6 days and 23 hours you are good to go for abortion because some dipshit just changed the criteria for life to be defined as being conscious now?
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if they allowed it up to birth, to be honest. Why? Because it's not my decision. Someone else gets to deal with that shit, and if I actually had to make a decision like that, I would definitely prefer that the government stay out of the mess.
Like you said, I'm not the one that will have to deal with the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
the thing is, though... your definition of life is that of basic cell biology. our definition of life is 'human' life. you're getting wrapped up in the semantics and you're trying to apply a definite and absolute use of the word 'life'. we're clearly not using one, here. the cells ability to divide and carry genetic information is 'life' in the same way that an ecoli colony is 'life'. when you talk about 'taking a life' and equate abortion with murder or capital punishment, i trust you're not talking about the act of wiping out cell colonies via disinfectants or cleaning products. you're using rhetoric that implies 'human life', in that sense of the word, i.e. a waking, conscious person. you can't twist the rhetoric both ways like that-- it doesn't work. either 'life' for you is basic cell biology or its the man sat in the electric chair, sweating and waiting to ride the lightning. don't try and abuse the semantics to emotionally attribute one with the (incompatible) other. you're either being dishonest or stupid... or both.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Again, you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Wiping out cell colonies on my counter top is not the same as aborting a fetus/zygote. Jacking off into a tube sock is not the same as aborting a fetus/zygote. Why? Because those cell colonies on my counter top have evolved to where they will be. They aren't going to turn into a human being next week. Same goes for those tube sock sperm or sperm launched into the vagina of a woman on the pill. Neither is going to suddenly change what it is and become human. It doesn't have that potential.Uzique wrote:
the thing is, though... your definition of life is that of basic cell biology. our definition of life is 'human' life. you're getting wrapped up in the semantics and you're trying to apply a definite and absolute use of the word 'life'. we're clearly not using one, here. the cells ability to divide and carry genetic information is 'life' in the same way that an ecoli colony is 'life'. when you talk about 'taking a life' and equate abortion with murder or capital punishment, i trust you're not talking about the act of wiping out cell colonies via disinfectants or cleaning products. you're using rhetoric that implies 'human life', in that sense of the word, i.e. a waking, conscious person. you can't twist the rhetoric both ways like that-- it doesn't work. either 'life' for you is basic cell biology or its the man sat in the electric chair, sweating and waiting to ride the lightning. don't try and abuse the semantics to emotionally attribute one with the (incompatible) other. you're either being dishonest or stupid... or both.
An embryo does. An embryo will, if it avoids complications, eventually turn into a human being. So I really can't separate that potential life from what you would define as a wholly human life.
But, by the same token, I don't even view kids as fully human by your definition. I view them as potential.
Last edited by Jay (2011-04-02 14:15:49)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I suppose, but I would argue that you can rationally define a cutoff point for abortion by stages of development. I suppose you could argue that might, in and of itself, be a defense mechanism against the emotional baggage, but I would also say that it could have a logical and unemotional component.Jay wrote:
Well, my argument in this thread has simply been that whether you draw the line at 25 weeks or at conception, there's no real difference. One simply helps the person doing the terminating to sleep at night and gives them a bit of justification. If I was in that situation, it wouldn't change my decision no matter where the line might be drawn. If it's going to seriously fuck up your life to have a kid, have at it.
Like you said, I'm not the one that will have to deal with the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Most developed nations have a cutoff point somewhere during the process as a compromise between the two extreme positions.
I just think the cutoff point is window dressing, that's all.Turquoise wrote:
I suppose, but I would argue that you can rationally define a cutoff point for abortion by stages of development. I suppose you could argue that might, in and of itself, be a defense mechanism against the emotional baggage, but I would also say that it could have a logical and unemotional component.Jay wrote:
Well, my argument in this thread has simply been that whether you draw the line at 25 weeks or at conception, there's no real difference. One simply helps the person doing the terminating to sleep at night and gives them a bit of justification. If I was in that situation, it wouldn't change my decision no matter where the line might be drawn. If it's going to seriously fuck up your life to have a kid, have at it.
Like you said, I'm not the one that will have to deal with the emotional baggage that goes along with it.
Most developed nations have a cutoff point somewhere during the process as a compromise between the two extreme positions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
so you also don't give a shit about child abuse, rape, or murderTurquoise wrote:
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if they allowed it up to birth, to be honest. Why? Because it's not my decision. Someone else gets to deal with that shit, and if I actually had to make a decision like that, I would definitely prefer that the government stay out of the mess.
lol... Well, I suppose I should answer this with a question...HaiBai wrote:
so you also don't give a shit about child abuse, rape, or murderTurquoise wrote:
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if they allowed it up to birth, to be honest. Why? Because it's not my decision. Someone else gets to deal with that shit, and if I actually had to make a decision like that, I would definitely prefer that the government stay out of the mess.
Do you believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape?
i don't think abortion should ever be allowed.Turquoise wrote:
lol... Well, I suppose I should answer this with a question...HaiBai wrote:
so you also don't give a shit about child abuse, rape, or murderTurquoise wrote:
Hell, I wouldn't have a problem if they allowed it up to birth, to be honest. Why? Because it's not my decision. Someone else gets to deal with that shit, and if I actually had to make a decision like that, I would definitely prefer that the government stay out of the mess.
Do you believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape?
I guess you "don't give a shit about rape" then.HaiBai wrote:
i don't think abortion should ever be allowed.Turquoise wrote:
lol... Well, I suppose I should answer this with a question...HaiBai wrote:
so you also don't give a shit about child abuse, rape, or murder
Do you believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape?
So the girl should be reminded of her rape every day for the rest of her life? Way to punish the victim.HaiBai wrote:
i don't think abortion should ever be allowed.Turquoise wrote:
lol... Well, I suppose I should answer this with a question...HaiBai wrote:
so you also don't give a shit about child abuse, rape, or murder
Do you believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
gee, i didn't see this arguement coming.Turquoise wrote:
I guess you "don't give a shit about rape" then.HaiBai wrote:
i don't think abortion should ever be allowed.Turquoise wrote:
lol... Well, I suppose I should answer this with a question...
Do you believe abortion should be allowed in cases of rape?
why should a life be ended without its consent just to ease the mother's suffering?
Then by the same token, why should anyone be jailed if they cause suffering?HaiBai wrote:
gee, i didn't see this arguement coming.Turquoise wrote:
I guess you "don't give a shit about rape" then.HaiBai wrote:
i don't think abortion should ever be allowed.
why should a life be ended without its consent just to ease the mother's suffering?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Why should the government get involved in a personal medical choice?HaiBai wrote:
gee, i didn't see this arguement coming.Turquoise wrote:
I guess you "don't give a shit about rape" then.HaiBai wrote:
i don't think abortion should ever be allowed.
why should a life be ended without its consent just to ease the mother's suffering?
The reason this argument never goes anywhere is that you prioritize the issue differently. You see it as an issue with the potential child's life, and I see it as a personal decision that should be between a woman, a doctor, and possibly the father.
because they broke the law? i honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.Jay wrote:
Then by the same token, why should anyone be jailed if they cause suffering?HaiBai wrote:
gee, i didn't see this arguement coming.Turquoise wrote:
I guess you "don't give a shit about rape" then.
why should a life be ended without its consent just to ease the mother's suffering?
Last edited by HaiBai (2011-04-02 15:11:19)
I know you don't.HaiBai wrote:
because they broke the law? i honestly don't understand what you're trying to say.Jay wrote:
Then by the same token, why should anyone be jailed if they cause suffering?HaiBai wrote:
gee, i didn't see this arguement coming.
why should a life be ended without its consent just to ease the mother's suffering?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i know that. i value the potential of a child's life more then i value the women's suffering.Turquoise wrote:
Why should the government get involved in a personal medical choice?HaiBai wrote:
gee, i didn't see this arguement coming.Turquoise wrote:
I guess you "don't give a shit about rape" then.
why should a life be ended without its consent just to ease the mother's suffering?
The reason this argument never goes anywhere is that you prioritize the issue differently. You see it as an issue with the potential child's life, and I see it as a personal decision that should be between a woman, a doctor, and possibly the father.
Possibly? Hey now.Turquoise wrote:
Why should the government get involved in a personal medical choice?HaiBai wrote:
gee, i didn't see this arguement coming.Turquoise wrote:
I guess you "don't give a shit about rape" then.
why should a life be ended without its consent just to ease the mother's suffering?
The reason this argument never goes anywhere is that you prioritize the issue differently. You see it as an issue with the potential child's life, and I see it as a personal decision that should be between a woman, a doctor, and possibly the father.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, I said possibly because if the father raped the woman, he shouldn't get a voice.Jay wrote:
Possibly? Hey now.Turquoise wrote:
Why should the government get involved in a personal medical choice?HaiBai wrote:
gee, i didn't see this arguement coming.
why should a life be ended without its consent just to ease the mother's suffering?
The reason this argument never goes anywhere is that you prioritize the issue differently. You see it as an issue with the potential child's life, and I see it as a personal decision that should be between a woman, a doctor, and possibly the father.
I shall grant your exception.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I said possibly because if the father raped the woman, he shouldn't get a voice.Jay wrote:
Possibly? Hey now.Turquoise wrote:
Why should the government get involved in a personal medical choice?
The reason this argument never goes anywhere is that you prioritize the issue differently. You see it as an issue with the potential child's life, and I see it as a personal decision that should be between a woman, a doctor, and possibly the father.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Why are people engaging part of the moron foursome? Don't encourage them.
A new born does not have a conscience. No memory, no sense of reason or existence. So based on your definition of "human life" requiring consciousness and no emotion or morality involved we can terminate a new born? It has the same consciousness as a fetus. So, whats stoppin ya from including a new born?Uzique wrote:
the thing is, though... your definition of life is that of basic cell biology. our definition of life is 'human' life. you're getting wrapped up in the semantics and you're trying to apply a definite and absolute use of the word 'life'. we're clearly not using one, here. the cells ability to divide and carry genetic information is 'life' in the same way that an ecoli colony is 'life'. when you talk about 'taking a life' and equate abortion with murder or capital punishment, i trust you're not talking about the act of wiping out cell colonies via disinfectants or cleaning products. you're using rhetoric that implies 'human life', in that sense of the word, i.e. a waking, conscious person. you can't twist the rhetoric both ways like that-- it doesn't work. either 'life' for you is basic cell biology or its the man sat in the electric chair, sweating and waiting to ride the lightning. don't try and abuse the semantics to emotionally attribute one with the (incompatible) other. you're either being dishonest or stupid... or both.