(May 22, 2014 at 10:46 am)Heywood Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 9:24 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Again, I asked what a 'future person' was on page 1...

I tend to ignore questions with obvious answers.

A future person is a person that exists in the future.

Does this include every sperm and egg cell? Every single one is half of a potential 'future person', every single one is alive, and every single one is just one tiny developmental tiptoe underneath a fertilized egg. If aborting a zygote is killing a human being, what makes masturbation and menstruation less heinous?

(May 22, 2014 at 2:00 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 10:46 am)Heywood Wrote: I tend to ignore questions with obvious answers.

A future person is a person that exists in the future.

Does this include every sperm and egg cell? Every single one is half of a potential 'future person', every single one is alive, and every single one is just one tiny developmental tiptoe underneath a fertilized egg. If aborting a zygote is killing a human being, what makes masturbation and menstruation less heinous?

Half potential a human being is not a full potential human being.
Like half a TV is not a full TV... heck, half a TV will not even work!

It seems it's ok to have an IUD or condom, which prevent one half from reaching the other half... but once the two halves come together, you're literally screwed (in Heywood's view, of course).

I prefer to give it a cool off period to decide... it seems 20 weeks is a good limit, as it's when a nervous system seems to become in working order and so, before that, there's no pain, no awareness whatsoever by the fetus... just a denial of service.

(May 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I prefer to give it a cool off period to decide... it seems 20 weeks is a good limit, as it's when a nervous system seems to become in working order and so, before that, there's no pain, no awareness whatsoever by the fetus... just a denial of service.

I don't support the 20 week limit. Only 1% of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks. Many fetal abnormalities can't be detected until the 20th week.

The 1% figure means that the 20 week limit is designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist to any significant extent. There's nothing reasonable or compromising about this. The only thing it will do is make it illegal for already distraught parents to seek an abortion after learning the child that they are eagerly expecting will be born with a defect.

(May 22, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I prefer to give it a cool off period to decide... it seems 20 weeks is a good limit, as it's when a nervous system seems to become in working order and so, before that, there's no pain, no awareness whatsoever by the fetus... just a denial of service.

I don't support the 20 week limit. Only 1% of all abortions are performed after 20 weeks. Many fetal abnormalities can't be detected until the 20th week.

The 1% figure means that the 20 week limit is designed to solve a problem that doesn't exist to any significant extent. There's nothing reasonable or compromising about this. The only thing it will do is make it illegal for already distraught parents to seek an abortion after learning the child that they are eagerly expecting will be born with a defect.

Defects should be dealt separately....
And when the mother's health is at risk.... and other rare events.
The 20 week principle is aimed at the normal cases.

(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Today a friend whom I argue politics with lamented that he didn't care if humans destroyed the earth but that I should since I have children.

So that got me wondering. If future generations have a right to a clean and livable earth why don't they have a right to exist? Essentially a conclusion of the pro abortion movement is that future people don't have a right to exist. The right of existence only comes into being after one is born. Well if they don't have a right to exist then they certainly don't have a right to a clean and livable earth.

How does someone who is pro abortion justify fighting against global warming? Do not the rights and needs of the people today supersede the rights and need of future people?

People who aren't born have a right to exist? So you mean every opportunity one has to copulate, it is their duty to do so? Something tells me you didn't think this through, Heywood.

As to the persons who DO and WILL exist, including us and future generations, yes, they have a right to a habitable planet in the same way that you have the right to not choke on your own oxygen. We all share the air we breathe and we all have a duty to protect it.

(May 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Half potential a human being is not a full potential human being.
Like half a TV is not a full TV... heck, half a TV will not even work!

A fetus that hasn't reached the age of external viability will function just as well as an independent human being as those egg and sperm cells.

(May 22, 2014 at 4:21 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Today a friend whom I argue politics with lamented that he didn't care if humans destroyed the earth but that I should since I have children.

So that got me wondering. If future generations have a right to a clean and livable earth why don't they have a right to exist? Essentially a conclusion of the pro abortion movement is that future people don't have a right to exist. The right of existence only comes into being after one is born. Well if they don't have a right to exist then they certainly don't have a right to a clean and livable earth.

How does someone who is pro abortion justify fighting against global warming? Do not the rights and needs of the people today supersede the rights and need of future people?

People who aren't born have a right to exist? So you mean every opportunity one has to copulate, it is their duty to do so? Something tells me you didn't think this through, Heywood.

As to the persons who DO and WILL exist, including us and future generations, yes, they have a right to a habitable planet in the same way that you have the right to not choke on your own oxygen. We all share the air we breathe and we all have a duty to protect it.

http://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk

(May 20, 2014 at 2:55 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 20, 2014 at 2:45 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Abortion is a matter concerning the fate of one "person". Climate change is a matter concerning the fate of humanity.

It is humanity's world and humanity's choice. If the people living today want to destroy the world....why should they care about potential future generations? Future people have no rights.

Humanity's world?

What about the billions of other species that live here, and have lived here before humanity came along.

And will be here when humanity is finally extinct.

Typically arrogant Christian.

(May 20, 2014 at 12:28 pm)Heywood Wrote: Essentially a conclusion of the pro abortion movement is that future people don't have a right to exist.

No, its that women have a right to decide when and if they become parents. Most women who have abortions have children already and even more go on to have kids at a later time when they can care for them.

Quote:How does someone who is pro abortion justify fighting against global warming?

This is the stupidest thing I have heard today.

(May 21, 2014 at 11:59 am)Heywood Wrote: This isn't a thread about the morality, necessity, or virtues of abortion. This is a thread about consistency. If future generations have a right to a clean and livable world then future generations have rights. This implies that future people have rights....including the right to exist. The right of a future person to exist contradicts a woman's right to an abortion.

You are conflating the concepts of possible with actual.

There are no actual future people. There is no way to predict what actual people will ever exist - just that there will be some people.

So there are no actual people to have a right to exist. What people do eventually exist may have rights, but future existence is not one of them.