(March 26, 2014 at 5:31 pm)Chad32 Wrote: That's not a very good analogy. It's odd that anyone would compare a fetus to a body part. There's a big difference. You're saying it's better to prevent someone from being inconvenienced for nine months over someone who could live 80+ years. That doesn't seem fair to me.

I wasn't comparing a fetus and a body part. I was comparing the situation of being kept alive at the expense of someone else, this is something that is not allowed if the person is unwilling and it will stay that way.

(March 26, 2014 at 7:40 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

This is not a person.

Current personhood is not a requirement for moral protection. In many states if you assault a pregnant woman and that assault results in miscarriage then you can be charged with murder. Further, have you ever been under general anesthesia? A human being under general anesthesia is just a lump of tissue. It has no consciousness or feelings...yet if you were to shoot your arch enemy while he/she was on the operating table, your would be charged with murder.

All that is required for a being to receive moral protection is a future expectation of personhood. Embryo's, like the one in your picture are beings which have a future expectation of personhood. The argument that an embryo is not a person and therefore is not entitled to moral protection is bunk. We grant moral protection to non-persons all the time.

---

(March 26, 2014 at 7:51 pm)Losty Wrote: Also I swear I am not a practicing board for debate. I suck at debate. I have zero formal education (for now). I want to be off talking about sexiness.

I do not believe abortion is wrong. You cannot change my mind on this subject.

Well perhaps then I can convince you that these problems are a little more nuanced then they seem with just a surface examination.

And really, if you do strive to be good thinker, with a well formulated and consistent world view, then your mind should be open to persuasion. You should be open to being convinced of things you do not want to be convinced of.

And last, if you read claims from people like Rampant A.I.....who think pro-lifers are just interested in controlling women.....you should recognize that as pure poppy-cock.

An adult under anesthesia is in no way comparable to a cluster of cells.

Under your strawman definition, intoxicated and sleeping would cease being people, whereas the cluster of cells is not yet a person

It's a ridiculous comparison.

The laws you're referring to start at the fetus stage. You're either deliberately attempting the most ridiculously dishonest and inaccurate argument you can in the hope no one will fact check you, or have no idea what you're talking about.

*SIGH*
Save the gay baby whales for Jesus.

Put that into Google. You will know why this thread sucks.

Heywood I recognize you as pure poppycock.
I am open to having these discussions with women. I don't care about how smart my argument sounds to you though. In the case of abortion I give a mans opinion very very little value.
It's so funny because I really really don't like abortion. If I ever had to have one for some reason I think I would be devastated, but like I told the OP the difference between you and I is that I am better at minding my own business. I don't like to stick my nose in another person's uterus.

I like to be very very simple when I think about morals. I like to go with my gut reactions. What feels right what feels wrong?
When I think about having an abortion it doesn't feel right for me, but when I think about butting my head into someone else's life and interrupting them in a very very personal decision and trying to tell them how to handle it when I have no place well that feels wrong.

(March 26, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: An adult under anesthesia is in no way comparable to a cluster of cells.

Under your strawman definition, intoxicated and sleeping would cease being people, whereas the cluster of cells is not yet a person

It's a ridiculous comparison.

The laws you're referring to start at the fetus stage. You're either deliberately attempting the most ridiculously dishonest and inaccurate argument you can in the hope no one will fact check you, or have no idea what you're talking about.

It doesn't matter if an adult under general anesthesia is not comparable to an embryo because that is not the question. The question is do you grant moral protection to human beings which are not persons....and the answer is yes we do.

Human beings transition in and out of personhood. I know that is difficult for you to accept(because doing so might force you to change your world view), but that is how the world works.....I am afraid you are just going to have to deal with it.

(March 26, 2014 at 9:44 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 26, 2014 at 9:25 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: An adult under anesthesia is in no way comparable to a cluster of cells.

Under your strawman definition, intoxicated and sleeping would cease being people, whereas the cluster of cells is not yet a person

It's a ridiculous comparison.

The laws you're referring to start at the fetus stage. You're either deliberately attempting the most ridiculously dishonest and inaccurate argument you can in the hope no one will fact check you, or have no idea what you're talking about.

It doesn't matter if an adult under general anesthesia is not comparable to an embryo because that is not the question. The question is do you grant moral protection to human beings which are not persons....and the answer is yes we do.

Human beings transition in and out of personhood. I know that is difficult for you to accept(because doing so might force you to change your world view), but that is how the world works.....I am afraid you are just going to have to deal with it.

No, a person under anaesthesia, asleep, or unconscious is still a person. They were a person when they went under and they are a person when they wake up.

A fetus/embryo/whatever stage they're at, has the potential to become a person.

There's a BIG difference.

But I will fall back on two time honoured statements.

1. Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
2. If males could get pregnant abortion would likely be available via drive-through with a free coffee.

(March 26, 2014 at 9:32 pm)Losty Wrote: Heywood I recognize you as pure poppycock.
I am open to having these discussions with women. I don't care about how smart my argument sounds to you though. In the case of abortion I give a mans opinion very very little value.
It's so funny because I really really don't like abortion. If I ever had to have one for some reason I think I would be devastated, but like I told the OP the difference between you and I is that I am better at minding my own business. I don't like to stick my nose in another person's uterus.

I like to be very very simple when I think about morals. I like to go with my gut reactions. What feels right what feels wrong?
When I think about having an abortion it doesn't feel right for me, but when I think about butting my head into someone else's life and interrupting them in a very very personal decision and trying to tell them how to handle it when I have no place well that feels wrong.

bolded by me

I'm sorry Losty, the bolded part is just stupid. Its as stupid as man saying, he don't care about a woman's opinion in regards to how a man should treat his wife.

---

(March 26, 2014 at 9:49 pm)Beccs Wrote: No, a person under anaesthesia, asleep, or unconscious is still a person. They were a person when they went under and they are a person when they wake up.

Well they are not persons while the are under general anesthesia but you do bring up something to think about.....they are clearly persons before they go under. We must consider does past personhood confer moral protection?

I believe the answer is no. If it were yes it would be morally wrong to pull the plug on a person who is "brain dead". Future personhood is what confers moral protection. It is why one can be charged with murder if one causes a woman to miscarry.

(March 26, 2014 at 9:50 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(March 26, 2014 at 9:32 pm)Losty Wrote: Heywood I recognize you as pure poppycock.
I am open to having these discussions with women. I don't care about how smart my argument sounds to you though. In the case of abortion I give a mans opinion very very little value.
It's so funny because I really really don't like abortion. If I ever had to have one for some reason I think I would be devastated, but like I told the OP the difference between you and I is that I am better at minding my own business. I don't like to stick my nose in another person's uterus.

I like to be very very simple when I think about morals. I like to go with my gut reactions. What feels right what feels wrong?
When I think about having an abortion it doesn't feel right for me, but when I think about butting my head into someone else's life and interrupting them in a very very personal decision and trying to tell them how to handle it when I have no place well that feels wrong.

bolded by me

I'm sorry Losty, the bolded part is just stupid. Its as stupid as man saying, he don't care about a woman's opinion in regards to how a man should treat his wife.

It's ok if you think I'm stupid heywood. It doesn't hurt my feelings.
How a man treats his wife affects people besides from that man. It affects his wife (a woman), their children/grandchildren if they have any. Having an abortion only has to affect the woman who is having it. It can affect the potential father but it doesn't have to.

I honestly think all of your arguments are really stupid. The drug smuggling argument stupid, the accidentally killing a not deer/human child argument, and now the how a man treats his wife argument.
You make these ridiculous comparisons that make no sense at all and you actually take yourself seriously.

(March 26, 2014 at 10:11 pm)Losty Wrote: It's ok if you think I'm stupid heywood. It doesn't hurt my feelings.....

I didn't say you were stupid. I said what you said in that particular sentence was stupid. One stupid sentence does not make a stupid person.

I think your intelligence is average.