Guys.....isn't this going a bit too far?

[Whateverist]

Is she saying kids should be abortable up until puberty then?  Maybe I have to go back and read the earlier posts.  Otherwise she may have become even more pro-choice than me.

If you use the excuse of "not fully formed" as an ok to kill someone, then that is what it would mean. That's why that argument falls apart.

No one wants to kill a kid-to-be.  But sometimes a woman is forced to evict an unwanted pregnancy.  Otherwise they'll have kids and stretch marks they didn't want.  You can't expect women to forgo sex just to make sure they never have to evict a fetus.

---

I never said abortion wasn't killing

Oh so you do admit abortion is killing. My work here is done then.

And I for one am prepared to stipulate that the killing is unfortunate but .. whadda you gonna do?  A lady needs her sex but she doesn't always need a baby.

[Amarok]

Just so the readers know, Orochi was originally arguing that abortion cannot possibly be classified as  killing because the fetus is just a clump of cells. Later Orochi said without even realizing that it is killing no matter how small the chunk of cells are.

Now Orochi has moved the goal post from "killing" to murder. Little does she know you can kill without being a murderer but cannot murder without being a killer.

It must be killing you how you're failing so miserably when you can't fill the thread with insults but instead have to actually give points to your reason.

Oh and BTW, I do condone abortion in the right circumstance. Your life is at risk? No problem. Condom broke? Fine. You came to know of it on the same day Trump got inaugurated? Go fuck yourself.

I don't care when or when you don't allow abortion

Your still a lying asshole

[Autumnlicious]

The whole "clump of cells" and "potential life" arguments never convince me either. Those cells have distinct human DNA, and are very much alive.

Yep. For liking science so much, science seems to fly out the window when abortion is the topic.

I know!

There's these people on the forum who can't differentiate between a functional neural network and a lump of cells. If it can't bootstrap because it's not done developing, then it's of little value when weighed against pre-existing human life.

No capability to form a mind (why we interact and care for infants) even with technological assistance (what we do in cases of infants being underdeveloped), then its not human.

Most anacephalic infants (no cerebrum) barely last a few hours, have no capability to develop a mind and are a perfect case example of "something that should've been aborted when it became detectable".

The whole "clump of cells" and "potential life" arguments never convince me either. Those cells have distinct human DNA, and are very much alive.

HeLa cells are human DNA.

They're also a cancer.

Viability, in the case of an human organism having the abiltity to form a coherent living mind at least at the level of extreme intellectual impairment, seems like a bare minimum. So looking at that, cell masses that do not have complex neural structures are fair game. Which is already the vast majority of abortions right there.

Missing vital structures like the cerebrum also qualifies as not a human. Things like that often comprise late term abortions. Then there are cases where the rest of the body is too damaged or undeveloped to salvage - some people bear them anyways only to watch them suffer, fade and die. How humane... but I guess it wasn't aborted.

Unless you have a purpose for human cattle, I would think that the late term abortions are more often catastrophes than not. And the early ones simply have no mind.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

And I for one am prepared to stipulate that the killing is unfortunate but .. whadda you gonna do? A lady needs her sex but she doesn't always need a baby.

Of course every woman needs her sex! Everybody needs their sex and they should have every right to. Although, the moment a woman becomes pregnant she is also responsible for another human life. A human life with its own right to live, if you can't be responsible for this human life or can't take care of it then at least take necessary precautions against getting pregnant but if you're getting abortions like leisure activity something is seriously wrong.

[Amarok]

And I for one am prepared to stipulate that the killing is unfortunate but .. whadda you gonna do?  A lady needs her sex but she doesn't always need a baby.

Of course every woman needs her sex! Everybody needs their sex and they should have every right to. Although, the moment a woman becomes pregnant she is also responsible for another human life. A human life with its own right to live, if you can't be responsible for this human life or can't take care of it then at least take necessary precautions against getting pregnant but if you're getting abortions like leisure activity something is seriously wrong.

1. Abortion is taking responsibility

2. It's right to live doesn't exceed her right to her own body

3. As for precautions abortion is just that

---

Of course every woman needs her sex! Everybody needs their sex and they should have every right to. Although, the moment a woman becomes pregnant she is also responsible for another human life. A human life with its own right to live, if you can't be responsible for this human life or can't take care of it then at least take necessary precautions against getting pregnant but if you're getting abortions like leisure activity something is seriously wrong.

1. Abortion is taking responsibility

2. It's right to live doesn't exceed her right to her own body

3. As for precautions abortion is just that

 And your still a lying asshole

---

Of course every woman needs her sex! Everybody needs their sex and they should have every right to. Although, the moment a woman becomes pregnant she is also responsible for another human life. A human life with its own right to live, if you can't be responsible for this human life or can't take care of it then at least take necessary precautions against getting pregnant but if you're getting abortions like leisure activity something is seriously wrong.

1. Abortion is taking responsibility

2. It's right to live doesn't exceed her right to her own body

3. As for precautions abortion is just that

4. Try one and see hoe leisurely it is asshole

---

1. Abortion is taking responsibility

2. It's right to live doesn't exceed her right to her own body

3. As for precautions abortion is just that

 And your still a lying asshole

---

Those are not formations those are modifications to already existing structures all the prerequisites are in place

So a 1 day old baby and a 25 year old is equally ' fully formed'?

sigh in the sense were talking yes

[Whateverist]

And I for one am prepared to stipulate that the killing is unfortunate but .. whadda you gonna do?  A lady needs her sex but she doesn't always need a baby.

Of course every woman needs her sex! Everybody needs their sex and they should have every right to. Although, the moment a woman becomes pregnant she is also responsible for another human life. A human life with its own right to live, if you can't be responsible for this human life or can't take care of it then at least take necessary precautions against getting pregnant but if you're getting abortions like leisure activity something is seriously wrong.

[My bold.]

And just her responsibility?  I suppose you think it is incumbent on women to take more precautions against abortion.  Both sexes have a sex drive but women alone bare the blame when a sperm makes it to an egg?  If I'm correct in remembering that you identify as gay your stance here seems rather facile.

[Tiberius]

Ok, so now my question is why does that make a human a person? What is the reasoning behind that definition?

This is getting down to a semantics battle.

That actually doesn't concern me as much as the reasoning behind abortion. A woman should be able to decide when she doesn't want to care for another life in any form at any time. This is why we have adoption for viable children. If that life is still relying entirely on that person's body and another cannot take over, then that does not mean it owns any right to that person's body.

It has to be a semantics battle, because we all understand and agree that killing a person is wrong in most circumstances, and killing an innocent person is wrong is almost all circumstances. So yeah, if we are going to be killing what is undeniably an innocent human life, we better make damn sure that either (a) it's not a person, or (b) we can morally argue that the circumstances surrounding its killing are justified.

I have issues with both (a) and (b).

I don't believe an unborn baby "owns" a right to its mother's body. I do believe that people have a right to do whatever they like with their own bodies. However, I also believe that rights can come into conflict, and conflict resolution is an important part of making moral judgements. The right to life is the most important right, IMO. It trumps all other rights, because without it, all other rights are meaningless. Therefore, when you have a conflict between an unborn child's right to life, and the right of the mother to do what she wants with her own body, I believe that the most justified conflict resolution is to favor the right of the unborn child over that of the mother's.

The pro-choice response to this is to refuse to acknowledge that unborn children have rights, and whenever they try to argue that unborn children aren't "people" and therefore don't have rights, they come up with all sorts of wishy washy definitions to try and back up that view.

Regardless of when an unborn child becomes "viable", my main issue with the whole "only people have rights" argument is that it only seems to be used in regard to abortion; you never see it anywhere else. Elsewhere, we call them "human rights", and even animals are granted some rights. An unborn child is a human, something that is undeniable to anyone who has studied the science of DNA. When does it become human? From the moment of conception. That's a new human life, independent from its parents. That's when human rights should kick in.

Now I realize you personally never argued the above, so please don't call it a "strawman" because I'm not trying to suggest you argued this, I'm just commenting on another common argument I've seen from the pro-choice side.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hela cells are cells that were taken from a woman's cancerous growth and kept alive by science. They contain her dna and genetic makeup.

An unborn baby is an entity made up of his/her own dna which is not the same as that of the mom. By the time we find out we are pregnant, the baby already has a heartbeat. He/she is a person of their own whom will continue to grow and develop for the next 20 years of their life. This is not another person's cancerous cell.

Also, babies with anancephaly are human beings with a syndrome that keeps their brain from ever developing. But they are still human beings regardless of what syndrome/condition/defect they may have. When a human woman and a human man procreate, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that their offspring would be anything other than human.

---

The idea that a person with any particular type of birth defect is not human is seriously old school and cruel.

[Whateverist]

I think too much is made of arguing the logical consequences of certain generalizations. When we're discussing how we treat each other, we generally have in mind others like ourselves with the capacity to decide how they shall treat us as well. To then argue that, well, an embryo is in one phase of becoming a person like ourselves so whatever we decide in regard to others like ourselves should extend to them too requires further argumentation. It shouldn't be automatic.

[brewer]

[edit]When does it become human? From the moment of conception. That's a new human life, independent from its parents. That's when human rights should kick in.[edit]

Just playing devils advocate. Exactly what human rights would you grant a zygote? The same as an adult or a new born?

And how is a zygote "independent" from it's parent?

---

[quote='Tiberius' pid='1492568' dateline='1485100639']
[edit]
When does it become human? From the moment of conception. That's a new human life, independent from its parents. That's when human rights should kick in.
[edit] 

Just playing devils advocate. Exactly what human rights would you grant a zygote? The same as an adult or a new born?

And how is a zygote "independent" from it's parent?

Edit: Sorry I messed up the text.