Yes it does, it's the only thing that matters. I killed a cluster of cells, nothing more. Trillions of cells are killed everyday, and I should feel bad because it has human DNA? Nope, my butt scrapings have that.
Your comparisons are still not really making sense. Even in your completely blatant dumbing down of what a developing human being really is, that "cluster of cells" is still very different. It's going to develop into a human being, and is already in the process of doing so. By killing that "cluster of cells", you're killing off a human's chance to live even as it's just getting started. This obviously doesn't compare to killing off random body cells.
I must say that I do support a strict deadline for the abortion to take place.
Potatoes also can't feel pain
Neither can an ea… morerly stage fetus.
have a heartbeat
That's irrelevant.
feel emotions
Neither can an early stage fetus.
or grow limbs
A limb, by definition, depends on the definition you use. But it can grow.
Something not being cognitive doesn't make it right to rid it of life. You still killed a human. The human not being sentient doesn't make it right to rid them of life.
Yes it does, it's the only thing that matters. I killed a cluster of cells, nothing more. Trillions of cells are killed everyday, and I should feel bad because it has human DNA? Nope, my butt scrapings have that. Just as taking a person off of life support if the family chooses (Pro-choice? Weird.) is fine, so it abortion. Actually, it's even more acceptable because the cells have never had sentience, therefore you cannot take what is not had.
I have no problem if someone is "pro-life." But when someone sex shames, spreads false info about sex, shames people who have abortions, and wants to tell me what to do with my body then I have a problem. I will fight for reproductive rights, it's my body and I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do with it.
And no, adoption is an alternative to parenting not pregnancy.
I don't think anyone has ever implied otherwise. The whole point of offering up the idea of adoption is in giving a solution to those who would want to terminate their pregnancy for reasons pertaining to not wanting to raise the child themselves. Given that adoption is an option, there is no justification in going through with an abortion simply for not wanting to have to raise your own child.
I normally stay out of these discussions online aside from my tumbrl but here we go.
I'm tokophobic (Fear of pregnancy/childbirth, for me… more it's ever getting pregnant) I would rather take a bullet to the brain then give birth or carry a fetus to term, I would rather risk death trying to have a miscarriage then give birth or be pregnant. I made up my mind I'm never getting pregnant, when my family talks about me having kids I feel like I'm going to have an anxity attack when I say I don't want kids of if I do I'm adopting and they respond with "your change your mind about having kids/ adopting." Or that (even an old close friend said this to me) I'm not fulfilling my role as a woman.
Pregnancy should be a blessing for the one wanting to carry and give birth, Pregnancy is NOT a punishment. And no, adoption is an alternative to parenting not pregnancy.
So yeah 100% Pro-choice here,
No. You killed a human, because those "cells" aren't just cells. They are the workings of a person.
Those cluster of cells was once me. God crafted me in the womb, and determined who I would be.
None of what you described actually forms a human. "Your butt scrapings" do not form humans. If you stop it, you stopped human life.
Just as taking a person off of life support if the family chooses (Pro-choice? Weird.) is fine, so it abortion.
Outrageous. A person being taken off of life support is nearing the end of their life. Abortion is ending life at the beginning. Euthanasia is ending a life that can no longer function usually without machinery. Abortion is ending a life that functions perfectly well.
I must say that I do support a strict deadline for the abortion to take place.
Potatoes also can't feel pain
Neither can an ea… morerly stage fetus.
have a heartbeat
That's irrelevant.
feel emotions
Neither can an early stage fetus.
or grow limbs
A limb, by definition, depends on the definition you use. But it can grow.
Something not being cognitive doesn't make it right to rid it of life. You still killed a human. The human not being sentient doesn't make it right to rid them of life.
Yes it does, it's the only thing that matters. I killed a cluster of cells, nothing more. Trillions of cells are killed everyday, and I should feel bad because it has human DNA? Nope, my butt scrapings have that. Just as taking a person off of life support if the family chooses (Pro-choice? Weird.) is fine, so it abortion. Actually, it's even more acceptable because the cells have never had sentience, therefore you cannot take what is not had.
Yes it does, it's the only thing that matters. I killed a cluster of cells, nothing more. Trillions of cells are killed everyday, and I shou… moreld feel bad because it has human DNA? Nope, my butt scrapings have that.
Your comparisons are still not really making sense. Even in your completely blatant dumbing down of what a developing human being really is, that "cluster of cells" is still very different. It's going to develop into a human being, and is already in the process of doing so. By killing that "cluster of cells", you're killing off a human's chance to live even as it's just getting started. This obviously doesn't compare to killing off random body cells.
I don't know anymore. I just try to forget.
it would have been to grow up with a good father
I know how you feel. The PTSD makes it easier to deal with.
That baby wont regret it because it's dead. You killed it.
If you're going to base the morality of ending life on how a person reacts to it, then injecting someone with a poison in their sleep would not be immoral according to you. At least, that's what I am getting out of it.
I usually haven't seen a mother more happy to see their baby. I'm sure it happens when they are disappointed, but people get abortions because of fear and people push them to do it. The mother hasn't experienced holding their own child in their arms, so therefore, you cannot say that they will regret it. It is all based on fear.
Yes, it matters, as your comparison made no sense. You don't just get to do whatever you want just because the baby isn't at a stage of development to possibly know what's going on. The fact that your justification is in taking advantage of the human being at it's very utmost vulnerable spot in life is just crazy. Do you truthfully think that justifies killing it? Just because it wouldn't know any better? The fact remains that you're stealing human life. That's all that matters here. It doesn't matter if the baby wouldn't have the ability to regret it.
No. You killed a human, because those "cells" aren't just cells. They are the workings of a person.
They are the beginning of a person, not a person in any regards other than DNA. Cells are not a sentient person.
Those cluster of cells was once me.
And me, your point? At this particular moment would you, yourself, be sad if you were aborted? No, and neither would I, because we would have never been sentient to be sad about it.
God crafted me in the womb, and determined who I would be.
Lol.
A person being taken off of life support is nearing the end of their life.
And the cells of a fetus being aborted are nearing the end of their life. If you would leave them on life support (or in the womb) they would continue to live. You are killing them just the same.
None of what you described actually forms a human. "Your butt scrapings" do not form humans. If you stop it, you stopped human life.
Irrelevant. The only linkage between those cells, my butt scrapings, and a sentient human being is DNA at their respective points.
I killed a cluster of cells, nothing more
No. You killed a human, because those "cells" aren't just cells. They are the workings o… moref a person.
Those cluster of cells was once me. God crafted me in the womb, and determined who I would be.
None of what you described actually forms a human. "Your butt scrapings" do not form humans. If you stop it, you stopped human life.
Just as taking a person off of life support if the family chooses (Pro-choice? Weird.) is fine, so it abortion.
Outrageous. A person being taken off of life support is nearing the end of their life. Abortion is ending life at the beginning. Euthanasia is ending a life that can no longer function usually without machinery. Abortion is ending a life that functions perfectly well.
And no, adoption is an alternative to parenting not pregnancy.
I don't think anyone has ever implied otherwise. The whole point of o… moreffering up the idea of adoption is in giving a solution to those who would want to terminate their pregnancy for reasons pertaining to not wanting to raise the child themselves. Given that adoption is an option, there is no justification in going through with an abortion simply for not wanting to have to raise your own child.
You would rather die than give birth? You seem to assume that your dramatic approach to child birth somehow makes abortion okay.
A good … moreparent sacrifices for their child, and giving birth to the child is one of those sacrifices that has to be made for the child. If you aren't willing to make those sacrifices, then why the hell are you having sex? Sex is a REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS FIRST. If you want to have sex before marriage, go ahead, but for God's sake, know the consequences and prepare for them!
That is why abstinence is important! People need to know when they are ready and when they are not. THEY need to make that conscious choice.
Because I had to remind my gay guy friend he still had to wear a condom, saved my friend the risk of an infection by reminding her only to use water base lube for vaginal sex
You know a crazy idea? What if they didn't have sex at all? :O
Sex is not a necessity. Sex is an impulse th… [view original content]
"The whole point of offering up the idea of adoption is in giving a solution to those who would want to terminate their pregnancy for reasons pertaining to not wanting to raise the child themselves."
I was specifically talking about those who would abort the baby for the sole reason of not wanting to raise the child themselves.
Can adoption take away nine months of pregnancy?
Nope, I don't think so.
Adoption can be a wonderful thing, but it is not an alternavie to people who don't want to go through pregnancy.
That baby wont regret it because it's dead. You killed it.
The cells were killed before sentience. Your point?
If you're going to base the morality of ending life on how a person reacts to it, then injecting someone with a poison in their sleep would not be immoral according to you. At least, that's what I am getting out of it.
You're ending a life that has had sentience.
I usually haven't seen a mother more happy to see their baby.
And, I'm guessing, you haven't seen a woman who has been forced to give birth to a rape child? Or any woman who has been forced to give birth to a child?
I'm sure it happens when they are disappointed, but people get abortions because of fear and people push them to do it.
Perhaps both, perhaps neither. Who are you (or anyone) to tell them they have to react to those in a certain fashion to begin with?
The mother hasn't experienced holding their own child in their arms, so therefore, you cannot say that they will regret it.
Perhaps, but who are you to say they wouldn't? The mother knows better than you or I, which is why it is their choice.
That baby wont regret it because it's dead. You killed it.
If you're going to base the morality of ending life on how a person reacts to… more it, then injecting someone with a poison in their sleep would not be immoral according to you. At least, that's what I am getting out of it.
I usually haven't seen a mother more happy to see their baby. I'm sure it happens when they are disappointed, but people get abortions because of fear and people push them to do it. The mother hasn't experienced holding their own child in their arms, so therefore, you cannot say that they will regret it. It is all based on fear.
No stage of development matters in this case. It doesn't matter if they are sentient because that is what is being crafted into them. You are preventing them from being sentient and experiencing life, a crime which disgusts me beyond measure, and a fate that nobody ever deserves.
And me, your point?
The point is that no man or woman in their right mind would ask to be aborted. All things desire to live and survive, including the child in the womb. It is much like a note, saying that I will wake up soon and be able to live life. What kind of person would you be if you ignored the note and prevented him or her from ever waking? If you ignored their desire to live, you ignored basic morality that says that ending life is a crime.
And the cells of a fetus being aborted are nearing the end of their life. If you would leave them on life support (or in the womb) they would continue to live. You are killing them just the same.
No. One you cannot recover or detach from. A child in the womb will eventually detach from his/her mother and be somewhat more independent as it continues to grow.
No. You killed a human, because those "cells" aren't just cells. They are the workings of a person.
They are the beginning of a pers… moreon, not a person in any regards other than DNA. Cells are not a sentient person.
Those cluster of cells was once me.
And me, your point? At this particular moment would you, yourself, be sad if you were aborted? No, and neither would I, because we would have never been sentient to be sad about it.
God crafted me in the womb, and determined who I would be.
Lol.
A person being taken off of life support is nearing the end of their life.
And the cells of a fetus being aborted are nearing the end of their life. If you would leave them on life support (or in the womb) they would continue to live. You are killing them just the same.
None of what you described actually forms a human. "Your butt scrapings" do not form humans. If you stop it, you stopped human life.
… [view original content]
When it hasn't reached sentience you cannot take what you do not have. So no, it doesn't matter. The fact that you would force a woman to give birth to something even at a stage where it can be avoided without hurting a sentient person is crazy. Do you honestly think that justifies traumatizing a woman? Just because you think she has to? The fact remains that the cells are not sentient, and the mother is. That's all that matters.
Yes, it matters, as your comparison made no sense. You don't just get to do whatever you want just because the baby isn't at a stage of deve… morelopment to possibly know what's going on. The fact that your justification is in taking advantage of the human being at it's very utmost vulnerable spot in life is just crazy. Do you truthfully think that justifies killing it? Just because it wouldn't know any better? The fact remains that you're stealing human life. That's all that matters here. It doesn't matter if the baby wouldn't have the ability to regret it.
It doesn't matter if it has reached sentience or not, the entire point is that you're stopping it from doing so. Why do you continue to ignore this? Why are you ignoring the fact that you would be actively halting the development of the human being, and preventing human life by terminating the pregnancy? It's sentience at this stage of development is entirely irrelevant. Just because the human isn't developed enough to be sentient does not mean there is justification in stopping it's life. Call it what you want, but you're killing off a human at it's most vulnerable stage in life.
Your whole argument seems to be: "Meh, it's not like they can possibly know that we're killing them, so why not just go ahead and do it?"
When it hasn't reached sentience you cannot take what you do not have. So no, it doesn't matter. The fact that you would force a woman to gi… moreve birth to something even at a stage where it can be avoided without hurting a sentient person is crazy. Do you honestly think that justifies traumatizing a woman? Just because you think she has to? The fact remains that the cells are not sentient, and the mother is. That's all that matters.
No stage of development matters in this case. It doesn't matter if they are sentient because that is what is being crafted into them.
Yes it does. Having sentience and not having sentience matters.
You are preventing them from being sentient and experiencing life, a crime which disgusts me beyond measure, and a fate that nobody ever deserves.
And the crime that disgusts me is forcing a woman to give birth. Thank the Goddess the law sides with me, mostly.
The point is that no man or woman in their right mind would ask to be aborted.
It isn't about asking to be aborted, it's about never reaching sentience and therefor it's rendered moot.
All things desire to live and survive, including the child in the womb.
Can... you prove that a fetus wants, or desires, to live and survive?
It is much like a note, saying that I will wake up soon and be able to live life.
In order to write a note you gotta be what? Sentient. There is no note.
No. One you cannot recover or detach from. A child in the womb will eventually detach from his/her mother and be somewhat more independent as it continues to grow.
The cells of the life supported person are alive, just as the fetus' cells.
No stage of development matters in this case. It doesn't matter if they are sentient because that is what is being crafted into them. You … moreare preventing them from being sentient and experiencing life, a crime which disgusts me beyond measure, and a fate that nobody ever deserves.
And me, your point?
The point is that no man or woman in their right mind would ask to be aborted. All things desire to live and survive, including the child in the womb. It is much like a note, saying that I will wake up soon and be able to live life. What kind of person would you be if you ignored the note and prevented him or her from ever waking? If you ignored their desire to live, you ignored basic morality that says that ending life is a crime.
And the cells of a fetus being aborted are nearing the end of their life. If you would leave them on life support (or in the womb) they would continue to live. You are killing them just the sam… [view original content]
This is one of the few things i'm completely against of.
Fist it violates the most important human right.
Some women might say: "It's my body i can do wathever i want with it", yeah you can do whatever you want with it as long as you don't affect other people in any way, but they seem to forget that the baby is another body, and they're killing the baby and denying all of his rights.
The only case where i would say it's understandable, is when it could cause health issues to the mother, but even then i just don't like the idea.
Yes it does. Having sentience and not having sentience matters.
You never said why it does matter.
And the crime that disgusts me is forcing a woman to give birth
Why would that disgust you anymore than killing a child? Childbirth sucks and it's painful, but the responsibility and sacrifice of being a parent trumps the right to one's body. That is why there is child abuse; since abuse isn't in a child's best interests, the parent has therefore shattered their responsibility as a parent, and the child would be taken away from them. Abortion is not in a child's best interest either.
It isn't about asking to be aborted, it's about never reaching sentience and therefor it's rendered moot.
Sentience has nothing to do with it. You couldn't tell me that once the said human gains sentience and understanding that they would want to be killed.
Can... you prove that a fetus wants, or desires, to live and survive?
A human fetus does not yet understand. I am saying that once a human does gain understanding, they wouldn't want to be aborted in their right mind. EVERY living thing strives to live and survive.
In order to write a note you gotta be what? Sentient. There is no note.
The note is metaphorical, obviously. But it is a simple fact that all beings desire to live once sentience is gained. Since the fetus will clearly gain sentience eventually, preventing the human fetus from achieving that understanding is immoral.
The current sentience doesn't matter if it is guaranteed to develop one. It's a cop out. "well, he isn't smart YET, so may as well take the opportunity while we have it!"
No stage of development matters in this case. It doesn't matter if they are sentient because that is what is being crafted into them.
… more Yes it does. Having sentience and not having sentience matters.
You are preventing them from being sentient and experiencing life, a crime which disgusts me beyond measure, and a fate that nobody ever deserves.
And the crime that disgusts me is forcing a woman to give birth. Thank the Goddess the law sides with me, mostly.
The point is that no man or woman in their right mind would ask to be aborted.
It isn't about asking to be aborted, it's about never reaching sentience and therefor it's rendered moot.
All things desire to live and survive, including the child in the womb.
Can... you prove that a fetus wants, or desires, to live and survive?
It is much like a note, saying that I will wake up soon and be able to live life.
In order to write a note… [view original content]
We're arguing is circles. My basic mindset is this, if you aren't against using a condom which directly intervenes with the reproduction process, then you have no right to be against having an abortion which directly intervenes with the reproduction cycle. The fertilization may have taken place in the second instance, but without the condom there very well would have been fertilization. You're just as guilty of preventing life one way as you are the other. So if you want to illegalize abortion you had best illegalize condoms as well, because otherwise you're preventing all those precious lives that should be coming into the world if not for your interference.
I already know your rebuttal, I don't agree and it's a cop out, but I've grown tired of this stale discussion.
Yes it does. Having sentience and not having sentience matters.
You never said why it does matter.
And the crime that disgusts… more me is forcing a woman to give birth
Why would that disgust you anymore than killing a child? Childbirth sucks and it's painful, but the responsibility and sacrifice of being a parent trumps the right to one's body. That is why there is child abuse; since abuse isn't in a child's best interests, the parent has therefore shattered their responsibility as a parent, and the child would be taken away from them. Abortion is not in a child's best interest either.
It isn't about asking to be aborted, it's about never reaching sentience and therefor it's rendered moot.
Sentience has nothing to do with it. You couldn't tell me that once the said human gains sentience and understanding that they would want to be killed.
Can... you prove that a fetus wants, or desires, to live and sur… [view original content]
I find it unfair that you say your point and then give up.
Clearly, I did not say using a condom was immoral, however, sperm cells die every moment even without releasing it. If releasing sperm without impregnating a woman is immoral, then I am constantly immoral because the millions of sperm cells in my body that die.
However, after fertilization, I told you, humanity has begun. But you clearly don't see it the same way.
We're arguing is circles. My basic mindset is this, if you aren't against using a condom which directly intervenes with the reproduction pro… morecess, then you have no right to be against having an abortion which directly intervenes with the reproduction cycle. The fertilization may have taken place in the second instance, but without the condom there very well would have been fertilization. You're just as guilty of preventing life one way as you are the other. So if you want to illegalize abortion you had best illegalize condoms as well, because otherwise you're preventing all those precious lives that should be coming into the world if not for your interference.
I already know your rebuttal, I don't agree and it's a cop out, but I've grown tired of this stale discussion.
The "connotations" you presented in your argument were implying that though the child exists, because they aren't sentient yet they don't "exist", at least by your standards, and their life doesn't matter as much as the mother's. You are basically saying that they don't have a life to lose because they aren't aware of their life yet. I addressed your "connotations", and said it's ludicrous to claim they don't matter just because they're in the early stages of development and have not yet become sentient, or that their life doesn't and shouldn't qualify as a life. It's unfair to use that against them when they will eventually become sentient without interference.
Furthermore, the baby has human DNA, it's own human DNA, you cannot continue to compare them to dead skin cells or say they're just like any other clump of cells without sounding illogical. Skin cells are parts of a human being, a fetus is a full human being that is developing. So because it is a developing human life in question, which will become sentient, your argument is not only irrelevant, it is also invalid. You acknowledge that a human life begins at conception/fertilization, which is scientifically proven as fact, and then go on to completely disregard that and say "their life isn't really a life until they know it's a life". Don't you understand how ridiculous that statement sounds? The comparisons you continue to make are clearly irrational, which is why I refuted that bit of your post in under a few sentences, because it is really that easy to debunk. It's hard to take your argument seriously when science proves you wrong, and you knowingly deny logic and fact with your silly comparisons. And from what I've seen in your other posts, even after you've clearly been proven wrong, you refuse to acknowledge or accept that and continue to recycle the same argument, which is a taboo in debating. Accept that your argument has been disproved and formulate a new one to prove your stance. Unless your argument contains concrete fact that is backed up by evidence, then it is acceptable to continue to repeat your argument until your opponent gets it through their head that they cannot disprove an already proven fact. I found your weak use of such "connotations" when speaking about a human life as though that life is meaningless, should be seen on the level of dead skin cells, and therefore it should be acceptable to kill them extremely unnerving. I've also said that many times.
I couldn't get past the first paragraph. The fact that you are still completely disregard the statements that I've put forth about connotations, in lieu of examples, and implications is.. unnerving. I've repeated it many numerous times.
Bye again.
I find it unfair that you say your point and then give up.
So we should sit here and argue for all time? Or do you want me to yield? I don't think either of those are going to happen.
Clearly, I did not say using a condom was immoral, however, sperm cells die every moment even without releasing it. If releasing sperm without impregnating a woman is immoral, then I am constantly immoral because the millions of sperm cells in my body that die.
Just the ones that should have been able to contact the egg had you not intervened (not you personally obviously, since your abstinent, but normal of age people).
However, after fertilization, I told you, humanity has begun. But you clearly don't see it the same way.
And humanity should have begun from the results of that male orgasm, for your condom egg blocked the swimmers and prevented life. How immoral.
EDIT: Wow I had to edit that one a couple of different times. That must mean it's time to sleep haha.
I find it unfair that you say your point and then give up.
Clearly, I did not say using a condom was immoral, however, sperm cells die ev… moreery moment even without releasing it. If releasing sperm without impregnating a woman is immoral, then I am constantly immoral because the millions of sperm cells in my body that die.
However, after fertilization, I told you, humanity has begun. But you clearly don't see it the same way.
Just the ones that should have been able to contact the egg had you not intervened
And humanity should have begun from that male orgasm, for your condom egg blocked the swimmers And prevented life. How immoral.
It isn't immoral to prevent the process from beginning. The process of fertilization and the process of human development are two different things on the moral scale.
Arguably, every single one of those millions of sperm cells could develop a human if there is an egg. Since millions die and regenerate without any release, I therefore am not immoral if I do release. Using a condom would really be no different than masturbation (in the sense that no egg is fertilized in the process), except it is with a partner. It only becomes immoral if the process of human development is stopped, because when the egg is fertilized humanity has begun, whereas if it is not humanity has not begun.
I find it unfair that you say your point and then give up.
So we should sit here and argue for all time? Or do you want me to yield?… more I don't think either of those are going to happen.
Clearly, I did not say using a condom was immoral, however, sperm cells die every moment even without releasing it. If releasing sperm without impregnating a woman is immoral, then I am constantly immoral because the millions of sperm cells in my body that die.
Just the ones that should have been able to contact the egg had you not intervened (not you personally obviously, since your abstinent, but normal of age people).
However, after fertilization, I told you, humanity has begun. But you clearly don't see it the same way.
And humanity should have begun from the results of that male orgasm, for your condom egg blocked the swimmers and prevented life. How immoral.
EDIT: Wow I had to edit that one a couple of different times. That must mean it's time to sleep haha.
No. In the natural world sure, but it is no longer so.
What, do we not live in the natural world?
With an abortion?
No. Not with an abortion. The whole point of the argument is the make sure people understand the risks of sexuality, so that people can have children when they are ready and there would be no need for abortions.
I believe you are a mother when you give birth, so, not actually a mother.
It doesn't matter what you believe if it isn't true. You are a mother when you begin to take care of your son/daughter, and you begin taking care of them inside the womb. You and your partner's flesh became one, and your son/daughter is conceived.
Sex is a REPRODUCTIVE PROCESS FIRST.
I couldn't help but respond to this. No. In the natural world sure, but it is no longer so.
… more and prepare for them!
With an abortion? That's exactly what it is, dealing with the consequences, so again that's a moot point.
You are a mother when you are a mother.
I believe you are a mother when you give birth, so, not actually a mother.
That is why abstinence is important!
Oh, God.... I should have known. I've gotta go do.... things. I'll grab my abstinence ring on my way out though, promise.
My basic mindset is this, if you aren't against using a condom which directly intervenes with the reproductive process, then you have no right to be against having an abortion
We're arguing is circles. My basic mindset is this, if you aren't against using a condom which directly intervenes with the reproduction pro… morecess, then you have no right to be against having an abortion which directly intervenes with the reproduction cycle. The fertilization may have taken place in the second instance, but without the condom there very well would have been fertilization. You're just as guilty of preventing life one way as you are the other. So if you want to illegalize abortion you had best illegalize condoms as well, because otherwise you're preventing all those precious lives that should be coming into the world if not for your interference.
I already know your rebuttal, I don't agree and it's a cop out, but I've grown tired of this stale discussion.
My basic mindset is this, if you aren't against using a condom which directly intervenes with the reproductive process, then you have no right to be against having an abortion
Didn't we go over this back on page one?
When speaking of the physical world, sure. But when speaking of humans obeying nature's "predetermined" rules, no. Just as a person being a vegan isn't natural, yet it's still done.
No. Not with an abortion
It's a solution, whether you like it or not. So saying they need to deal with it or prepare for it is moot.
It doesn't matter what you believe if it isn't true. You are a mother when you begin to take care of your son/daughter, and you begin taking care of them inside the womb. You and your partner's flesh became one, and your son/daughter is conceived.
No. "Mother- a woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth."
No. In the natural world sure, but it is no longer so.
What, do we not live in the natural world?
With an abortion?
No… more. Not with an abortion. The whole point of the argument is the make sure people understand the risks of sexuality, so that people can have children when they are ready and there would be no need for abortions.
I believe you are a mother when you give birth, so, not actually a mother.
It doesn't matter what you believe if it isn't true. You are a mother when you begin to take care of your son/daughter, and you begin taking care of them inside the womb. You and your partner's flesh became one, and your son/daughter is conceived.
Just the ones that should have been able to contact the egg had you not intervened
And humanity should have begun from that male orga… moresm, for your condom egg blocked the swimmers And prevented life. How immoral.
It isn't immoral to prevent the process from beginning. The process of fertilization and the process of human development are two different things on the moral scale.
Arguably, every single one of those millions of sperm cells could develop a human if there is an egg. Since millions die and regenerate without any release, I therefore am not immoral if I do release. Using a condom would really be no different than masturbation (in the sense that no egg is fertilized in the process), except it is with a partner. It only becomes immoral if the process of human development is stopped, because when the egg is fertilized humanity has begun, whereas if it is not humanity has not begun.
And you are ending a life that will have sentience.
But hasn't had sentience. This has been stated many times. That cluster of cells in not sentient or cognitive so it should not get precedent over a person who has them.
The fact of the matter that it does not have sentience doesn't mean we should kill it.
That's for the mother to decide, not you.
We look down upon killing animals, a la sharks, tigers, dogs, cats, etc, they don't have sentience do they? And they will never gain sentience.
Yes they do. And it's not always looked down on.
A human fetus will eventually become sentient, yet we still destroy it. It's kind of like stopping a car on a production line that would function fine once it's out of the factory.
And if the car would undoubtedly cause pain to its owner would they still release the car? I doubt it.
It doesn't matter if it has reached sentience or not, the entire point is that you're stopping it from doing so. Why do you continue to igno… morere this? Why are you ignoring the fact that you would be actively halting the development of the human being, and preventing human life by terminating the pregnancy? It's sentience at this stage of development is entirely irrelevant. Just because the human isn't developed enough to be sentient does not mean there is justification in stopping it's life. Call it what you want, but you're killing off a human at it's most vulnerable stage in life.
Your whole argument seems to be: "Meh, it's not like they can possibly know that we're killing them, so why not just go ahead and do it?"
Bad wording because it sheds light on how terrible it is?
When it's better for the woman and nothing to the fetus then it's overall better than the alternative.
It isn't "nothing" to the fetus just because it isn't sentient. Taking away human life isn't "nothing". You're talking about taking away the most precious gift in the world from a defenseless unborn baby that has no control over it's own fate. Arguing that it is better for the woman is both subjective and irrelevant as it adds no justification to doing this.
Your whole argument seems to be: "Meh, it's not like they can possibly know that we're killing them, so why not just go ahead and do it?"
… more
Bad wording, but largely yes. When it's better for the woman and nothing to the fetus then it's overall better than the alternative.
Bad wording because it sheds light on how terrible it is?
Bad wording because it makes it seem terrible in the first place.
It isn't "nothing" to the fetus just because it isn't sentient.
Yes, it is nothing to the fetus, it's only something to you.
Arguing that it is better for the woman is both subjective and irrelevant as it adds no justification to doing this.
It's not irrelevant and it does justify. The woman is better off (of she doesn't want it, then forcing her to have it would be worse off) and the non-sentient fetus is not hurt, only you are.
Bad wording, but largely yes.
Bad wording because it sheds light on how terrible it is?
When it's better for the woman and not… morehing to the fetus then it's overall better than the alternative.
It isn't "nothing" to the fetus just because it isn't sentient. Taking away human life isn't "nothing". You're talking about taking away the most precious gift in the world from a defenseless unborn baby that has no control over it's own fate. Arguing that it is better for the woman is both subjective and irrelevant as it adds no justification to doing this.
How hasn't it? It has been explained in detail how these things are not comparable. It is illogical to just look at the end result that both are preventing reproduction and then chalk the two up as being similar/ the same thing. In the case of abstinence and using protection, there is only the potential for reproduction. There is no human being made, period. In the case of abortion, there is a human being made, and the abortion actually kills that human being. You could give that human being a name if you really wanted to. There is a massive difference in killing off a developing human being and simply not fulfilling the potential of starting human creation.
Killing unborn babies =/= not having sex (or using protection). These things are not comparable. Especially so in the context of what we have been debating.
Just as a person being a vegan isn't natural, yet it's still done.
The conclusion on the site I was given to provide me with evidence that veganism is a better alternative even stated that humans aren't pre-adapted to such a diet.
What, do we not live in the natural world?
When speaking of the physical world, sure. But when speaking of humans obeying nature's "… morepredetermined" rules, no. Just as a person being a vegan isn't natural, yet it's still done.
No. Not with an abortion
It's a solution, whether you like it or not. So saying they need to deal with it or prepare for it is moot.
It doesn't matter what you believe if it isn't true. You are a mother when you begin to take care of your son/daughter, and you begin taking care of them inside the womb. You and your partner's flesh became one, and your son/daughter is conceived.
No. "Mother- a woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth."
to whom she has given birth
Not a mother.
Do they have morals? Do they have free will? Do they think about what's in the sky? Do they have hopes, wonders, dreams? No. That is why human beings are special. No species has shown what we have been doing.
Doesn't matter. They have sentience.
And they can always put that car back to the dealer where it can find a new owner that will take care of it.
Only after it has hurt the original owner? No thanks.
Comments
here is a FAQ from a blog on tumblr, to a wonderful pro-choice blog. I encourage pro-choices to check it out, full of info.
http://pro-choice-or-no-voice.tumblr.com/message+FAQ
Forgot to put the links, oopies. I'm half asleep XD
Your comparisons are still not really making sense. Even in your completely blatant dumbing down of what a developing human being really is, that "cluster of cells" is still very different. It's going to develop into a human being, and is already in the process of doing so. By killing that "cluster of cells", you're killing off a human's chance to live even as it's just getting started. This obviously doesn't compare to killing off random body cells.
I have no problem if someone is "pro-life." But when someone sex shames, spreads false info about sex, shames people who have abortions, and wants to tell me what to do with my body then I have a problem. I will fight for reproductive rights, it's my body and I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do with it.
I don't think anyone has ever implied otherwise. The whole point of offering up the idea of adoption is in giving a solution to those who would want to terminate their pregnancy for reasons pertaining to not wanting to raise the child themselves. Given that adoption is an option, there is no justification in going through with an abortion simply for not wanting to have to raise your own child.
No. You killed a human, because those "cells" aren't just cells. They are the workings of a person.
Those cluster of cells was once me. God crafted me in the womb, and determined who I would be.
None of what you described actually forms a human. "Your butt scrapings" do not form humans. If you stop it, you stopped human life.
Outrageous. A person being taken off of life support is nearing the end of their life. Abortion is ending life at the beginning. Euthanasia is ending a life that can no longer function usually without machinery. Abortion is ending a life that functions perfectly well.
It doesn't matter. It is not sentient. The baby will not regret being aborted and the mother will regret it being born. It's simple.
How does having PTSD help to deal with something like that?
I'm no trying to pry, I'm just curious?
That baby wont regret it because it's dead. You killed it.
If you're going to base the morality of ending life on how a person reacts to it, then injecting someone with a poison in their sleep would not be immoral according to you. At least, that's what I am getting out of it.
I usually haven't seen a mother more happy to see their baby. I'm sure it happens when they are disappointed, but people get abortions because of fear and people push them to do it. The mother hasn't experienced holding their own child in their arms, so therefore, you cannot say that they will regret it. It is all based on fear.
Yes, it matters, as your comparison made no sense. You don't just get to do whatever you want just because the baby isn't at a stage of development to possibly know what's going on. The fact that your justification is in taking advantage of the human being at it's very utmost vulnerable spot in life is just crazy. Do you truthfully think that justifies killing it? Just because it wouldn't know any better? The fact remains that you're stealing human life. That's all that matters here. It doesn't matter if the baby wouldn't have the ability to regret it.
They are the beginning of a person, not a person in any regards other than DNA. Cells are not a sentient person.
And me, your point? At this particular moment would you, yourself, be sad if you were aborted? No, and neither would I, because we would have never been sentient to be sad about it.
Lol.
And the cells of a fetus being aborted are nearing the end of their life. If you would leave them on life support (or in the womb) they would continue to live. You are killing them just the same.
Irrelevant. The only linkage between those cells, my butt scrapings, and a sentient human being is DNA at their respective points.
Can adoption take away nine months of pregnancy?
Nope, I don't think so.
Adoption can be a wonderful thing, but it is not an alternavie to people who don't want to go through pregnancy.
I couldn't help but respond to this. No. In the natural world sure, but it is no longer so.
With an abortion? That's exactly what it is, dealing with the consequences, so again that's a moot point.
I believe you are a mother when you give birth, so, not actually a mother.
Oh, God.... I should have known. I've gotta go do.... things. I'll grab my abstinence ring on my way out though, promise.
"The whole point of offering up the idea of adoption is in giving a solution to those who would want to terminate their pregnancy for reasons pertaining to not wanting to raise the child themselves."
I was specifically talking about those who would abort the baby for the sole reason of not wanting to raise the child themselves.
The cells were killed before sentience. Your point?
You're ending a life that has had sentience.
And, I'm guessing, you haven't seen a woman who has been forced to give birth to a rape child? Or any woman who has been forced to give birth to a child?
Perhaps both, perhaps neither. Who are you (or anyone) to tell them they have to react to those in a certain fashion to begin with?
Perhaps, but who are you to say they wouldn't? The mother knows better than you or I, which is why it is their choice.
No stage of development matters in this case. It doesn't matter if they are sentient because that is what is being crafted into them. You are preventing them from being sentient and experiencing life, a crime which disgusts me beyond measure, and a fate that nobody ever deserves.
The point is that no man or woman in their right mind would ask to be aborted. All things desire to live and survive, including the child in the womb. It is much like a note, saying that I will wake up soon and be able to live life. What kind of person would you be if you ignored the note and prevented him or her from ever waking? If you ignored their desire to live, you ignored basic morality that says that ending life is a crime.
No. One you cannot recover or detach from. A child in the womb will eventually detach from his/her mother and be somewhat more independent as it continues to grow.
When it hasn't reached sentience you cannot take what you do not have. So no, it doesn't matter. The fact that you would force a woman to give birth to something even at a stage where it can be avoided without hurting a sentient person is crazy. Do you honestly think that justifies traumatizing a woman? Just because you think she has to? The fact remains that the cells are not sentient, and the mother is. That's all that matters.
It doesn't matter if it has reached sentience or not, the entire point is that you're stopping it from doing so. Why do you continue to ignore this? Why are you ignoring the fact that you would be actively halting the development of the human being, and preventing human life by terminating the pregnancy? It's sentience at this stage of development is entirely irrelevant. Just because the human isn't developed enough to be sentient does not mean there is justification in stopping it's life. Call it what you want, but you're killing off a human at it's most vulnerable stage in life.
Your whole argument seems to be: "Meh, it's not like they can possibly know that we're killing them, so why not just go ahead and do it?"
Yes it does. Having sentience and not having sentience matters.
And the crime that disgusts me is forcing a woman to give birth. Thank the Goddess the law sides with me, mostly.
It isn't about asking to be aborted, it's about never reaching sentience and therefor it's rendered moot.
Can... you prove that a fetus wants, or desires, to live and survive?
In order to write a note you gotta be what? Sentient. There is no note.
The cells of the life supported person are alive, just as the fetus' cells.
This is one of the few things i'm completely against of.
Fist it violates the most important human right.
Some women might say: "It's my body i can do wathever i want with it", yeah you can do whatever you want with it as long as you don't affect other people in any way, but they seem to forget that the baby is another body, and they're killing the baby and denying all of his rights.
The only case where i would say it's understandable, is when it could cause health issues to the mother, but even then i just don't like the idea.
You never said why it does matter.
Why would that disgust you anymore than killing a child? Childbirth sucks and it's painful, but the responsibility and sacrifice of being a parent trumps the right to one's body. That is why there is child abuse; since abuse isn't in a child's best interests, the parent has therefore shattered their responsibility as a parent, and the child would be taken away from them. Abortion is not in a child's best interest either.
Sentience has nothing to do with it. You couldn't tell me that once the said human gains sentience and understanding that they would want to be killed.
A human fetus does not yet understand. I am saying that once a human does gain understanding, they wouldn't want to be aborted in their right mind. EVERY living thing strives to live and survive.
The note is metaphorical, obviously. But it is a simple fact that all beings desire to live once sentience is gained. Since the fetus will clearly gain sentience eventually, preventing the human fetus from achieving that understanding is immoral.
The current sentience doesn't matter if it is guaranteed to develop one. It's a cop out. "well, he isn't smart YET, so may as well take the opportunity while we have it!"
We're arguing is circles. My basic mindset is this, if you aren't against using a condom which directly intervenes with the reproduction process, then you have no right to be against having an abortion which directly intervenes with the reproduction cycle. The fertilization may have taken place in the second instance, but without the condom there very well would have been fertilization. You're just as guilty of preventing life one way as you are the other. So if you want to illegalize abortion you had best illegalize condoms as well, because otherwise you're preventing all those precious lives that should be coming into the world if not for your interference.
I already know your rebuttal, I don't agree and it's a cop out, but I've grown tired of this stale discussion.
I find it unfair that you say your point and then give up.
Clearly, I did not say using a condom was immoral, however, sperm cells die every moment even without releasing it. If releasing sperm without impregnating a woman is immoral, then I am constantly immoral because the millions of sperm cells in my body that die.
However, after fertilization, I told you, humanity has begun. But you clearly don't see it the same way.
The "connotations" you presented in your argument were implying that though the child exists, because they aren't sentient yet they don't "exist", at least by your standards, and their life doesn't matter as much as the mother's. You are basically saying that they don't have a life to lose because they aren't aware of their life yet. I addressed your "connotations", and said it's ludicrous to claim they don't matter just because they're in the early stages of development and have not yet become sentient, or that their life doesn't and shouldn't qualify as a life. It's unfair to use that against them when they will eventually become sentient without interference.
Furthermore, the baby has human DNA, it's own human DNA, you cannot continue to compare them to dead skin cells or say they're just like any other clump of cells without sounding illogical. Skin cells are parts of a human being, a fetus is a full human being that is developing. So because it is a developing human life in question, which will become sentient, your argument is not only irrelevant, it is also invalid. You acknowledge that a human life begins at conception/fertilization, which is scientifically proven as fact, and then go on to completely disregard that and say "their life isn't really a life until they know it's a life". Don't you understand how ridiculous that statement sounds? The comparisons you continue to make are clearly irrational, which is why I refuted that bit of your post in under a few sentences, because it is really that easy to debunk. It's hard to take your argument seriously when science proves you wrong, and you knowingly deny logic and fact with your silly comparisons. And from what I've seen in your other posts, even after you've clearly been proven wrong, you refuse to acknowledge or accept that and continue to recycle the same argument, which is a taboo in debating. Accept that your argument has been disproved and formulate a new one to prove your stance. Unless your argument contains concrete fact that is backed up by evidence, then it is acceptable to continue to repeat your argument until your opponent gets it through their head that they cannot disprove an already proven fact. I found your weak use of such "connotations" when speaking about a human life as though that life is meaningless, should be seen on the level of dead skin cells, and therefore it should be acceptable to kill them extremely unnerving. I've also said that many times.
So we should sit here and argue for all time? Or do you want me to yield? I don't think either of those are going to happen.
Just the ones that should have been able to contact the egg had you not intervened (not you personally obviously, since your abstinent, but normal of age people).
And humanity should have begun from the results of that male orgasm, for your condom egg blocked the swimmers and prevented life. How immoral.
EDIT: Wow I had to edit that one a couple of different times. That must mean it's time to sleep haha.
It isn't immoral to prevent the process from beginning. The process of fertilization and the process of human development are two different things on the moral scale.
Arguably, every single one of those millions of sperm cells could develop a human if there is an egg. Since millions die and regenerate without any release, I therefore am not immoral if I do release. Using a condom would really be no different than masturbation (in the sense that no egg is fertilized in the process), except it is with a partner. It only becomes immoral if the process of human development is stopped, because when the egg is fertilized humanity has begun, whereas if it is not humanity has not begun.
What, do we not live in the natural world?
No. Not with an abortion. The whole point of the argument is the make sure people understand the risks of sexuality, so that people can have children when they are ready and there would be no need for abortions.
It doesn't matter what you believe if it isn't true. You are a mother when you begin to take care of your son/daughter, and you begin taking care of them inside the womb. You and your partner's flesh became one, and your son/daughter is conceived.
Didn't we go over this back on page one?
I'm done arguing for the night. I've said my piece.
Yes, and it hasn't changed.
When speaking of the physical world, sure. But when speaking of humans obeying nature's "predetermined" rules, no. Just as a person being a vegan isn't natural, yet it's still done.
It's a solution, whether you like it or not. So saying they need to deal with it or prepare for it is moot.
No. "Mother- a woman in relation to a child or children to whom she has given birth."
Not a mother.
No, you're still preventing the life that should come from that sexual act. Humanity would have begun if not for your direct intervention.
But hasn't had sentience. This has been stated many times. That cluster of cells in not sentient or cognitive so it should not get precedent over a person who has them.
That's for the mother to decide, not you.
Yes they do. And it's not always looked down on.
And if the car would undoubtedly cause pain to its owner would they still release the car? I doubt it.
Bad wording, but largely yes. When it's better for the woman and nothing to the fetus then it's overall better than the alternative.
Bad wording because it sheds light on how terrible it is?
It isn't "nothing" to the fetus just because it isn't sentient. Taking away human life isn't "nothing". You're talking about taking away the most precious gift in the world from a defenseless unborn baby that has no control over it's own fate. Arguing that it is better for the woman is both subjective and irrelevant as it adds no justification to doing this.
Bad wording because it makes it seem terrible in the first place.
Yes, it is nothing to the fetus, it's only something to you.
It's not irrelevant and it does justify. The woman is better off (of she doesn't want it, then forcing her to have it would be worse off) and the non-sentient fetus is not hurt, only you are.
How hasn't it? It has been explained in detail how these things are not comparable. It is illogical to just look at the end result that both are preventing reproduction and then chalk the two up as being similar/ the same thing. In the case of abstinence and using protection, there is only the potential for reproduction. There is no human being made, period. In the case of abortion, there is a human being made, and the abortion actually kills that human being. You could give that human being a name if you really wanted to. There is a massive difference in killing off a developing human being and simply not fulfilling the potential of starting human creation.
Killing unborn babies =/= not having sex (or using protection). These things are not comparable. Especially so in the context of what we have been debating.
The conclusion on the site I was given to provide me with evidence that veganism is a better alternative even stated that humans aren't pre-adapted to such a diet.
Doesn't matter. They have sentience.
Only after it has hurt the original owner? No thanks.
Most of the animals you listed have the potential to go extinct without said protection. The human population is above 7.125 billion as of 2013.