What's your position on abortion? And why?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by DerekB

"otherwise you only look like a self-important fool." - I stated that the way you went about presenting yourself and your argument made you LOOK like one. I did not say you were one. And I told a person to get over themselves when they condescendingly called me a noob.

Again, they didn't call YOU a noob, and your opinion of another person and someone elses opinion of you, doesn't magically make the difference between an opinion and an attack.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Derek

Concerning personhood, aelle asked a very interesting question earlier. I would like to hear your opinion on it.

If it eventually becomes two people, than it is the beginnings of two people (two souls if you subscribe to the religious stuff, which I do not). If it eventually becomes one again, it is just one person. Who says that an embryo has to be defined as one person rather than multiple people, or vice versa. If it splits, than it is just a more complicated process of arriving at the same ends.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

You're definition of pro-life cannot possibly be right. Think about it, if it counted for ALL LIFE, that would extend not only to animals but to plants as well. As a result, human beings wouldn't be allowed to eat anything, and humanity would die off in weeks. Pro life refers to human beings, who are unique and special among the creatures of earth due to our intelligence and awareness.

So that's what makes it murder?

Then if you are being logically consistent you have conceded this argument:

Okay, here's mine. A person, an agent with rights and to whom society has ethical responsibilities, has interests. That's not a complete definition, but I do think it's required. In order to have interests, you must have a brain. The brain does not even begin developing until several weeks into the pregnancy, which if the premises above are accepted, proves it is not a person at conception.

Now, a brain and interests are not all that is necessary for something to be a person, otherwise, society would consider cows and lizards people. So, beyond that, the argument becomes fuzzier. But a fetus is not inherently a person.

[ZephyrusX]

I don't feel the same way, to be honest. Though I understand the sentiment and the shared sentiment expressed earlier by Curious Cat in regards to seeing dismembered fetus parts.

If you define a fetus as being human solely on its potential to be a full fledged human one day, then by that logic, I would have the moral responsibility to go get knocked up whenever possible as my eggs also represent the potential for human life. But the majority of people don't expect this. Some do. Not most of us though (at least, not in North America).

Having the potential to be human does not actually constitute what we would call being human, and on the same vein, observing the potential for something does not morally inform you as to whether or not you ought to follow through with that potential.

Originally Posted by Agota

In my case, the reason why I'd consider fetus as a person of some form is it's potential to become a human being. I couldn't have an abortion, because I'd imagine the time when that fetus would actually become a child, a teenager, an adult and therefore I'd feel like I'm giving up on that, not on couple of cells combined together. Again, this is a personal opinion and it's wrong to try to force it on others, especially ones who might be in less favorable circumstances than you are. The fact that fetus has a potential to become a human being doesn't mean that anyone has a right to explain someone what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

So that's what makes it murder?

Then if you are being logically consistent you have conceded this argument:

that's not going to work lol he's only going to counter that with " they WILL have intelligence and awareness, where animals never will".

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Again, they didn't call YOU a noob, and your opinion of another person and someone elses opinion of you, doesn't magically make the difference between an opinion and an attack.

And for the third time, they did call ME a noob. ME. Nobody else. I'm starting to wonder if you're a troll, as surely nobody could continue to ignore or not understand the basic explanation I've given you several times already. Read my posts! I'm sick of having to explain the same simple concept to you multiple times. Aelle called me a noob because of the content my comment, using the excuse of reviving an old post (as a result of mistakenly believing it was me who revived it).

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

So that's what makes it murder?

Then if you are being logically consistent you have conceded this argument:

I have not conceded that. A fetus will develop the brain at the cognitive level of which you speak. An animal, bug, or plant never will.

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

I have not conceded that. A fetus will develop the brain at the cognitive level of which you speak. An animal, bug, or plant never will.

Not necessarily. However, why does its potential affect how we morally treat it now? You have give no reason for that, at all. None. If you do not give a reason, it is irrelevant.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by DerekB

And for the third time, they did call ME a noob. ME. Nobody else. I'm starting to wonder if you're a troll, as surely nobody could continue to ignore or not understand the basic explanation I've given you several times already. Read my posts! I'm sick of having to explain the same simple concept to you multiple times. Aelle called me a noob because of the content my comment, using the excuse of reviving an old post (as a result of mistakenly believing it was me who revived it).

Is that really such an insult to you? It means you are new to the forum.

God...seriously. Get over it.

If that's all it takes for you to feel insulted you must be really hard to live with.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Not necessarily. However, why does its potential affect how we morally treat it now? You have give no reason for that, at all. At all. If you do not give a reason, it is irrelevant.

Because it isn't just potential. Potential implies it might now. It is all but guaranteed that it will. That's why.

Thought experiment:

I have to choose between saving two lives, yours or somebody elses (don't ask how this situation arose, because I have no idea ). Now, he is a midlevel executive at a charity, and a reasonably good person. You, at this time, have no family, no friends, and are unemployed with no skills. You too are a reasonably good person. If I had to choose to save one of you however, I would probably have to pick the businessman. If, however, I knew that you would eventually discover the cure for cancer and develop a process for cloning organs to extend human life indefinitely, I would obviously choose to save you. Therefore, future worth matters regardless of present worth.

[ZephyrusX]

This is just a friendly question: How would you feel if someone told you to get over it? If it insulted him, it insulted him. This speaks for it self.

To be fair, however, Aelle did apologize Derek.

Originally Posted by elucidate

Is that really such an insult to you? It means you are new to the forum.

God...seriously. Get over it.

If that's all it takes for you to feel insulted you must be really hard to live with.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Is that really such an insult to you? It means you are new to the forum.

God...seriously. Get over it.

If that's all it takes for you to feel insulted you must be really hard to live with.

I shed no tears over it, I assure you. But when people call me a name rather than address my argument, simply because they disagree with it, it irks me because it shows a lack of respect for me and my opinions. And I didn't respond unduly. I told the person who did that to get over themselves and told somebody else that sarcastically insulting somebody without sufficient evidence to back your stance against them makes them seem to be self important and a fool. I didn't go spouting off racial slurs or calling people very offensive names. If you ask me, people who felt I over-reacted are the oversensitive ones.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

This is just a friendly question: How would you feel if someone told you to get over it? If it insulted him, it insulted him. This speaks for it self.

To be fair, however, Aelle did apologize Derek.

If he feels insulted over someone calling him a noob then he may want to look at why that is so insulting. It means new person. It's not even an insult.

If someone told me to get over THAT, I'd probably take their words in and think about why I'm getting my knickers in a knot over being told I'm a new person.

If somebody said something actually insulting, then I'd have every right to feel insulted.

I've been told to get over it before over things like this, and I didn't mind. I did need to get over it.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

This is just a friendly question: How would you feel if someone told you to get over it? If it insulted him, it insulted him. This speaks for it self.

To be fair, however, Aelle did apologize Derek.

Being told to get over myself would not bother me. It isn't an insult. Its somebody expressing the opinion that I am self-important, and need an ego check.

[ZephyrusX]

Its not guaranteed to be if I abort it.

Originally Posted by DerekB

Because it isn't just potential. Potential implies it might now. It is all but guaranteed that it will. That's why.

Thought experiment:

I have to choose between saving two lives, yours or somebody elses (don't ask how this situation arose, because I have no idea ). Now, he is a midlevel executive at a charity, and a reasonably good person. You, at this time, have no family, no friends, and are unemployed with no skills. You too are a reasonably good person. If I had to choose to save one of you however, I would probably have to pick the businessman. If, however, I knew that you would eventually discover the cure for cancer and develop a process for cloning organs to extend human life indefinitely, I would obviously choose to save you. Therefore, future worth matters regardless of present worth.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by elucidate

If he feels insulted over someone calling him a noob then he may want to look at why that is so insulting. It means new person. It's not even an insult.

If someone told me to get over THAT, I'd probably take their words in and think about why I'm getting my knickers in a knot over being told I'm a new person.

If somebody said something actually insulting, then I'd have every right to feel insulted.

I am not bothered at ALL by being called a "noob". The word is absolutely harmless. That was not the offense. It was purposefully ignoring my post, and calling me names (regardless of how bad said names are) rather than having intelligent debate and discussion. It shows a complete lack of respect for me. That is what I found offensive.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Its not guaranteed to be if I abort it.

Haha valid argument I suppose.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by DerekB

I shed no tears over it, I assure you. But when people call me a name rather than address my argument, simply because they disagree with it, it irks me because it shows a lack of respect for me and my opinions. And I didn't respond unduly. I told the person who did that to get over themselves and told somebody else that sarcastically insulting somebody without sufficient evidence to back your stance against them makes them seem to be self important and a fool. I didn't go spouting off racial slurs or calling people very offensive names. If you ask me, people who felt I over-reacted are the oversensitive ones.

Ok. I can see why you felt your argument wasn't being taken seriously, and the word noob might have come off as condescending, being that you are new and all. Aelle apologized, so why is it even being brought up again?

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Ok. I can see why you felt your argument wasn't being taken seriously, and the word noob might have come off as condescending, being that you are new and all. Aelle apologized, so why is it even being brought up again?

It wasn't brought up by me. If it was it wasn't meant to be.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by DerekB

I am not bothered at ALL by being called a "noob". The word is absolutely harmless. That was not the offense. It was purposefully ignoring my post, and calling me names (regardless of how bad said names are) rather than having intelligent debate and discussion. It shows a complete lack of respect for me. That is what I found offensive.

THAT I understand.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by elucidate

THAT I understand.

Finally! Lol

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by DerekB

Because it isn't just potential. Potential implies it might now. It is all but guaranteed that it will. That's why.

False. 10-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. [American Pregnancy Association, http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pre...carriage.html]

Thought experiment:

I have to choose between saving two lives, yours or somebody elses (don't ask how this situation arose, because I have no idea ). Now, he is a midlevel executive at a charity, and a reasonably good person. You, at this time, have no family, no friends, and are unemployed with no skills. You too are a reasonably good person. If I had to choose to save one of you however, I would probably have to pick the businessman. If, however, I knew that you would eventually discover the cure for cancer and develop a process for cloning organs to extend human life indefinitely, I would obviously choose to save you. Therefore, future worth matters regardless of present worth.

That is not equivalent to how ethical decisions can be made in real life. In that example, for one, you are choosing based on the benefit to society, not by the person's interests themselves (or their "right to life"), in a case where someone must die, and where killing either person would plainly be considered murder.

When you are arguing that fetuses should not be aborted, it is for their own potential future benefit (or "right to life"). As there is absolutely no way of knowing what effect they as individuals will have on society, it is not a valid way to make this ethical determination.

The two situations are not equivalent.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by aelle

I love when noobs dig up a year-old, 17-page-long thread without reading it and with nothing new to add to the discussion

This is the offensive quote in question, if I'm not mistaken?

Aelle is clearly addressing the person who revived the thread, which wasn't you, it was the person above you...which she even clarified later on...so why do you think it was you? You didn't revive the thread.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by carolynggme

When our population has now reached over 7 Billion, why be so dense? The mother should have the choice, if it comes to that. The real problem is lack of education, but that will not be solved in our lifetime!

This is the person who revived the thread.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by elucidate

This is the offensive quote in question, if I'm not mistaken?

Aelle is clearly addressing the person who revived the thread, which wasn't you, it was the person above you...which she even clarified later on...so why do you think it was you? You didn't revive the thread.

He explained why he feels that way. He feels that way, because he feels that stating the fact about 7 billion people, was something new. There for, aelle wasn't referring to them. And because he feels that his thread was not adding anything new to the conversation, apparently. He's explained it to me three times. Don't make him have to explain it for the FORTH time, or you'll become another fool in his eyes.

Clearly, you didn't collect all your facts before making your post. You are with me, with seemingly not being able to grasp his precise logic of the situation.

Originally Posted by DerekB

1) She was referring to me, she didn't notice that I was not the person who revived the thread, she mistakenly believed I did. That is evidenced when you examine her statement that the "noob" had nothing new to add. The person who posted before me (the true thread reviver) spoke about the population reaching seven billion people. This is something that was new to the thread, since the population reached seven billion a week ago, the last post before that was in January, when NOBODY was talking about the population. Whats strange is I already posted this and explained it explicitly to you, yet you still cannot seem to grasp it.
.

[cheesedip1]

If abortion is supposedly wrong, then doesn't that mean it's an abortion if the woman has a miscarriage?

Some anti-abortionists say that life begins at conception.



PS. I'm pretty open minded right now. Not sure what to think when it comes to abortion.

[cheesedip1]

There have been many NDE's where during the life review, nobody cared that abortions took place usually as long as they didn't occur soon before birth.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by cheesedip1

If abortion is supposedly wrong, then doesn't that mean it's an abortion if the woman has a miscarriage?

Some anti-abortionists say that life begins at conception.



PS. I'm pretty open minded right now. Not sure what to think when it comes to abortion.

that's natural. Tho, we could also get into an argument, about what's natural, and what are outside things that we do, that would cause a miscarriage. The whole point of it being wrong, is if someone causes it to happen, vs it just happening.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

False. 10-25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. [American Pregnancy Association, http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pre...carriage.html]




That is not equivalent to how ethical decisions can be made in real life. In that example, for one, you are choosing based on the benefit to society, not by the person's interests themselves (or their "right to life"), in a case where someone must die, and where killing either person would plainly be considered murder.

When you are arguing that fetuses should not be aborted, it is for their own potential future benefit (or "right to life"). As there is absolutely no way of knowing what effect they as individuals will have on society, it is not a valid way to make this ethical determination.

The two situations are not equivalent.

They aren't meant to be. Its meant to illustrate that just because something is not at a certain level in its existence now doesn't mean you should just ignore its future.

Miscarriage happens without interference. Its natural. So it isn't relevant to an abortion debate. I get the point your making about my use of the word "guaranteed" but if it naturally is miscarried than there's nothing to be done or said about it.

[DerekB]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

that's natural. Tho, we could also get into an argument, about what's natural, and what are outside things that we do, that would cause a miscarriage. The whole point of it being wrong, is if someone causes it to happen, vs it just happening.

I agree russian. Good reasoning on this one, that's just how I would've answered.