Abortion!

[Navaron]

"What if someone wasn't a big enough person to handle such responsibility?"

You get your head out of your pussy, suck it up, and make some fuckin lemonade. People today are so self centered and weak. My friend who whacked herself. She was weak. I know weak when I see it. People today are too selfish and weak. Sometime's I'm ashamed they're the same species as me.

"But what makes the fetus above a chimpanzee or a cow"

Cause the Cow will never become a human. Technically speaking.

[Arshune]

As far as science and religion...I feel there's no proof either way, so why bother worrying about it? Go with what suits you best, or none at all.

Science relating to this argument, however, is something else entirely. Yes, at conception, something is technically "alive," but humans so frequently don't give a damn about whether something is alive or not. We kill to survive every day, the question you should really ask yourself is "what kind of life is worth preserving?" When someone says "does life begin at conception" you should instinctively add the word "human" before life. Because human life doesn't begin until something becomes a person.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
But what makes the fetus above a chimpanzee or a cow? From a purely technical standpoint, the chimpanzee is probably a higher form of life than the fetus, yet we experiment on them in extremely cruel fashion for our own benefit every day. Yes, the fetus is alive, but is it alive enough to consider it a human yet? When does that fetus get that "special something" that makes it a person?

What?!?!?!??!?!?!? Are you alive enough to be considered human?? What kind of statements are these?? What if I told you I was against all killing of animals?? Would that suddenly make my point valid?? How exactly are you comparing killing a cow and killing a human again??

And Nav, I can see this is a sensitive issue to you, and no one is asking you to say if the decision is right or wrong for yourself, just if you think the option should be open to other people. What if someone wasn't a big enough person to handle such responsibility?

Adoption. I think we've covered this one about a dozen times now.

[ABRAXAAS]

"But what makes the fetus above a chimpanzee or a cow"

Cause the Cow will never become a human. Technically speaking. [/B][/QUOTE]

and we can kill cows whenever we want

no good comes of these threads im going to go play UT2003

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
Science relating to this argument, however, is something else entirely. Yes, at conception, something is technically "alive," but humans so frequently don't give a damn about whether something is alive or not. We kill to survive every day, the question you should really ask yourself is "what kind of life is worth preserving?" When someone says "does life begin at conception" you should instinctively add the word "human" before life. Because human life doesn't begin until something becomes a person.

The long standing debate that pro-abortionists used was that the fetus was the same as the mother. Then someone came along and asked, 'well, if the DNA is different, then is the child separate?' The abortionists decided that yes, it was, but it didn't matter because the tests were not advanced enough to determine such a thing. Then years later the tests became advanced enough and science discovered that the DNA was different at the moment of conception.
What was a good enough way of deciding suddenly wasn't good enough once the results came out. Again, makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Please define a person for me. I guarantee you that I will find you people in the world today who will not fit your discription and therefore, should be legally and morally killable.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
What?!?!?!??!?!?!? Are you alive enough to be considered human?? What kind of statements are these?? What if I told you I was against all killing of animals?? Would that suddenly make my point valid?? How exactly are you comparing killing a cow and killing a human again??

I'm comparing the fetus to the cow because we kill the cow every day for our own benefit, and sometimes killing a fetus would benefit some people. Saying you were against the killing of all animals wouldn't necessarily change the validity of anyone's argument, but it would make your views more in line with each other. We all seem to agree that killing humans is wrong, but where does humanity begin?

[Navaron]

Arshune, you have failed to make sense or points now.

"Go with what suits you best, or none at all."

So let's throw everything out the window, and anyone can resort to "No, I'm right, you're wrong." Comon man.

"but humans so frequently don't give a damn about whether something is alive or not. "

That's not the point. We care about HUMANS being alive or not.

" Because human life doesn't begin until something becomes a person."

WTF? I think you need sleep.

[Arshune]

The point I was trying to make was that I believe that a fetus isn't a person yet, even though it is technically alive.

Edit: ...and the suits you best thing was referring to religion, I'm saying that since it isn't regulated by law (for most of us) that it makes little sense to get worked up about it. Abortion, however, could potentially be made illegal, and therefore is more worthwile to debate.

[Navaron]

For the love of all that is holy, define a person.

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
I'm comparing the fetus to the cow because we kill the cow every day for our own benefit, and sometimes killing a fetus would benefit some people.

I can think of a lot of people that could be killed and I would benefit from it. Does that make it right or legal?? Hell no.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}mistled
I can think of a lot of people that could be killed and I would benefit from it. Does that make it right or legal?? Hell no.

I refer you to the thousands of wars that have been fought over civilizations history. It benefitted them to kill people, so they did. Was it right? Sometimes. Was it legal? Oh yeah. Murder, however, is illegal and wrong. Murder is defined as the killing of another person in cold blood. My personal definition of a person is any member of a sentient species that is currently intelligent, or at the very least 100% certain to become intelligent.

[Navaron]

You have no arguement anymore, you're out of straws to grasp, come back when you've had some sleep. You've succesfully ignored facts and points, and your post lost congruency a while back.

[SandTrout]

Originally posted by Arshune
We kill to survive every day, the question you should really ask yourself is "what kind of life is worth preserving?"

We should never be asking this unless the person has been proven threat to society by the act of murder. This is the worst thing that our society could come to, and should be avoided at nearly any cost.

The decision should be left to the individual. I'm an advocate for people commiting suiside as long as they are not insane or just in a temporary dip in thier life.

When we start trying to make the decision on what kind of lives are worth preservein, and which should be romoved, we will have become the same as NAZIs.

The NAZIs belived that the lives of ****, homosexuals, ******, and the dissabled were not worth preserveing.

I think that Pro-abortionists are pro-murder, so I dont think their lives are worth preserveing. Should I go on a crusade to kill these murders?

*Edit: I've now lost all respect for Abortionists, thanks for the epiphiny. People don't look at what they are saying close enough.*

[mistled]

Originally posted by Arshune
My personal definition of a person is any member of a sentient species that is currently intelligent, or at the very least 100% certain to become intelligent.

That's awful. You've managed to put a subjective concept into such an important thing. Who, exactly, determines what 'intelligent' is?? What happens when someone starts basing 'intelligence' on a particular test?? What happens when people fail?? How about if a person has a stroke. Can we kill them if they have brain damage?? What about brain damage from an accident?? Can we kill them as well?? If someone is mentally retarded and can't take care of themselves, are they intelligent??

100% certain huh.... how would you determine this?? No child can be guaranteed to grow up intelligent, no matter what your definition of 'intelligence' is. Strange things happen. Diseases that may not have been seen before birth come about. What if there is a 2% chance that the child is born with brain damage?? Do you kill it because of that 1 in 50 chance?? Or do you take the much better odds that the child will be born just fine?? According to your own definition, the child is not alive, so murder away.

[Arshune]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Navaron
You have no arguement anymore, you're out of straws to grasp, come back when you've had some sleep. You've succesfully ignored facts and points, and your post lost congruency a while back.

O....k. That was harsh man, no need to resort to the hatorade.

I'm not "ignoring" anything, I've been trying my very best to be respectful to your viewpoints while at the same time responding with my own. I just happen not to agree with you. If that's the way you feel, great. I'm merely asking if you feel it's right or wrong, and I got a straight answer. I like to argue, and I did.

I didn't put my entire opinion in my very first post because quite frankly, it's a long bit of typing. I'm going to now though. My view on the issue is that until a lifeform becomes a "person" it's got no rights. Now, when there's a conversion from simply "life" to "person" is something no one seems to agree on. I think people just aren't people until they're intelligent. Does that mean you should wantonly kill them? No, not unless they're going to hurt you. Killing is always wrong unless it directly aids survival. Someone said that there's no objective test for intelligence, and that's entirely correct, I agree with that, but that doesn't change my view. I don't think something without intelligence has the same rights as something with intelligence. From reading some of your posts, you seem to think that I'm saying we should just kill anything that isn't a human or that isn't intelligent, and that's simply not true. If someone has a stroke or gets brain damage, they really should have prepared a living will that clearly expresses what they want done with them, and most people DO have such a thing. But if someone doesn't and they're suffering or have servere brain damage, shouldn't they be allowed to end their lives with the dignity of a human being? This brings up a whole other argument about euthanasia though, so I won't get into that. Personally, if I received brain damage that impaired my normal functioning, I wouldn't want to go on. But that's just me. This gets back to the "intelligence as a subjective term" thing. I have a somewhat loose definition of intelligence, as long as it can convey ideas and express thought in some way, I feel it's intelligent. That's why I'm against experimenting on certain animals, because they're intelligent. That's why I'm against killing brain damaged people and babies, because they're intelligent. Are they necessarily human? That really depends on your definition of human. In my book, not really. Does that mean I want them dead? No.

I also feel that if someone isn't going to take care of their unborn child when it finally is born, then they should either carry it to term and put it up for adoption or have an abortion. If it was me in that situation, I would probably put it up for adoption, an abortion would play hell on my feelings. Do I feel that the option should be open to other people? Yes, this is America, it's their life. If they can deal with the emotional problems and don't want to take care of the child, they should be able to do it.

Both pro-abortion and anti-abortion viewpoints make valid points, but what seperates them is the mind of the person considering them.

That's how I feel about it, and if you disagree, I'm not really trying to change your mind. Though I do like to argue...