Mike Pence for President.

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 397
Topic's author
#331
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@disgusted
Finally, you present arguments.

No you want bodily autonomy for men but not for women, that's hypocritical.
I personally believe that if a man causes a woman to get pregnant, that he should not be allowed to ditch her and must provide emotional support for the duration of the pregnancy.  If a woman can't get out of a pregnancy, a man shouldn't be allowed to either and I'm fine with that.
How do you know the woman is pregnant and what does the condition of her body have to do with you.
Using this logic, why would cops even exist?  It's not like the criminal hurts them.  They exist to give rights to others.  Just as the pro life movement is trying to give rights to others.
#332
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
I personally believe that if a man causes a woman to get pregnant, that he should not be allowed to ditch her and must provide emotional support for the duration of the pregnancy.  If a woman can't get out of a pregnancy, a man shouldn't be allowed to either and I'm fine with that.
Stay on track the discussion concerns a woman's right to her bodily autonomy, not some random tangent rattling around in your bonce.

Using this logic, why would cops even exist?  It's not like the criminal hurts them.  They exist to give rights to others.  Just as the pro life movement is trying to give rights to others.
More rambling nonsense unrelated to every woman's right to her bodily autonomy. Stick to the subject. The pro life movement demands that a woman, not a man, a woman has no right to her bodily autonomy, they demand that women's rights are stripped from them. Misogynists.

BTW I've presented the same argument since my first post, can't you read? Get mummy to read and explain my posts to you.
#333
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
A fetus in the womb is there temporarily.  If a person on anesthesia was there for 9 months, is it okay to kill them?
But a person is self-sustaining without anaesthesia. A fetus.. not so much. A person on anaesthesia for 9 months would still have the prerequisite characteristics of personhood.

It would be safe to assume that a criminal's threshold is below 0.  Does this justify a death sentence, even if their crime was only robbing $2 worth of goods?
That would be an unsafe assumption <.<. Personally, it would take for some truly reprehensible acts for me to consider their "threshold" to be below 0.

Although I would save the little girl, the abortion battle isn't about who's life is more valuable; the mother or the fetus.  The battle on which is more valuable out of the following conditions: A mother's convenience or a fetus's life.
But it isn't about a mother's convenience. Having a baby has a critical impact on a mother's life and can severely impact both the mother's mental and physical state, as well as her finances and relationships. Is this not what you would consider someone's life?

Not sure if I agree.  The teen may rely on their parents, but I don't think they cover the extra filters (for lack of better term).
Teens having babies is quite abnormal, and in such a case I'd expect that the parents would impose their will over much of the decision making process. However, in the general case, a mentally capable adult is going to go through a series of decision making steps.

Realistically this is what you'd expect right? For any life-altering decision, you go through a series of a decision making steps. For example, after graduating high school, one might go off to university, go for an apprenticeship, take a gap-year or pursue some other career goal. If you've been offered two different jobs, you have to examine any number of characteristics to choose the right one.

Adoption in many situations should be optional.  If you have the ability to take care of the child, you can decide if you want to set the kid up for adoption or not.  Also, this claim goes on the assumption that people get messed up in the system.
The common perception is that a child in the system fares worse off than a child growing up in a related-loving family. So realistically, based on this perception, this is really one of those "pseudo-optional" kind of things. Where either you do do it and suffer for it, or you don't do it, feel like a shitbird and suffer regardless over the decision.

A fetus exists.  The only way a pre born human wouldn't exist is if they weren't conceived.  Conception is the marker of if they exist or not.  Even pro choice people believe that a fetus exists, they just don't believe that they are human.
So what I mean by exists is a philosophical view. Obviously on a physical level there is no question at conception there is the zygote.

How do I know someone or something exists? I can sense them, feel them, touch them. I have memories, emotions and experiences of them. When you strip this away, you may as well be a bacterium to me, and when you die, it means an end to this existence.

On something like a zygote, there is no existence to them. So, it's not a question of dying. It's a question of having existed to die in the first place

There are 2 objections to this definition of "existence" or "life" whichever one you meant.

1: Someone with amnesia doesn't have memories.  Does this mean they should be killed for not having memories?
2: An old person has more memories then a younger person.  Does this mean they are more valuable?
1: A person with amnesia does have memories. They just don't have the ones you wish them to have
2: Not really. I consider existence to be predicated by the presence of any memories at all. You can't rank something that's binary

Foster kids get parents.  http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years.
I mean.. this is still less than the average and a reduction to average productivity

They still contribute.  I don't want to waste the GDP that people produce to the economy.  
I imagine like most adults, they will contribute more then they cost as a group.
GDP isn't a magical number that automatically increases the quality of life of the people however. It's simply an objective measure of a countries economy. If infrastructure cannot keep up with population growth, the populace suffers as a result. The obvious example here is India. Large GDP, large population, poor quality of life and suffers from overcrowding.

Foster kids aren't degenerates.  I know a few of them and they aren't messed up individuals.  Most get adopted to well off families.
I didn't say foster kids are degenerates. Degenerates were just an example. But in any case... personal anecdote <.<
More importantly foster kids are definitely objectively impacted in someway: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/1145
#334
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Truth  and facts do not change because their repeated.

Read my lips/text again. Umpteen times Ive stated yes, fetus/baby is human and of course it is alive. Ive never ever stated otherwise.

#313--You are okay with killing them (condoning murdering another human being).
Read my lips/text:I'm ok with pregnant woman deciding what  she does with a non-breathing human being that,

1} is inside her as a non-independent/individual human fetus/baby,

2} is an organism of that woman via her body inherenlty directing all nutritional sustinence to that non-breathing, non-independent/individual, non-breating human fetus/baby,

3} non-independent/individual,  human fetus/baby,  that, exists in many/multiple and rapid transistional phases that have not yet lead to,
....3a} not being born-out,
.....3b}  not taken its first IN-spiration of oxygen,


So, why not apply that standard to yourself?
1} I asked you to behave as a rational, logical common sense adult, and you keep refusing to do so ergo I cannot repeatedly keep this line immature, irrational illogical lack of common sense with youas the info I give you;

....1a} It goes in one ear and gets lost in a black hole, or,
.....1b} goes out the other  ear with no reading compreehension along the way through.

Are you okay with those who make laws and legislate the unborns death determining you are unfit to live because the elite does not see you are as advanced in some manner as they are?

I'm ok with mature adults who use rational, logical common sense and exhibit moral integrity. This is not you or any radical religious etremist and/or Trumpanzee.

If you recognize they are alive and they are human beings (I believe I could find many posts that you argue against them being such
BS and you have not nor will you ever find such posts by me.


Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you examine your own position. 

Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you stop virutal rape{?} of all prenant woman by sticking your immoral nose *v* into their bodily business.  Do you understand that? No? I didnt think so. Take a hike. I cannot repeatedly keep responding to your lack of moral integrity, immature irrational, illogical lack of common sense.

.You need to be Locked Away!, along with all the other immoral, immature, Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzees,  from the moral civilized society.

Lock Them Away!

Lock Them Away!

Lock Them Away!

#335
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
I am not asserting. I have given you what scientists say. Not only this, it is obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization. 

May I ask what you have read in this field of debate?
Why is it obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization? What is the rationale?

This is my problem with your references to scientists. When it comes to global warming, people are able to point to scientists, who are then able to point to specific facts and figures that show abnormal temperatures. And that's all fine and dandy. Your examples merely describe characteristics and then assert their opinion as truth. You then carry over that opinion and then exclaim "These opinions come from scientists. Obviously this must be objective truth!". But if you don't have the rationale, and the scientists you link don't have the rationale, what am I supposed to do with this? Take it as blind gospel? It's the blind leading the blind.

It is obvious to most scientists that a new human life begins at conception or the process of fertilization. It is not extraordinary, it is common sense. An egg contains 23 chromosomes and so does a sperm. When the sperm penetrates the egg the two sets of chromosomes unite to form a distinct human being, different from either parent. These are facts.
If it is obvious as you claim, then you can make a perfectly reasoned argument as to why a newly fertilized egg is indeed a human being without resorting to "it's obvious", "it's common sense" and "most scientists".

Would you like a formal debate on this subject?

Now listen to what you are saying: "a beginning of a human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself." 

What do you mean? This makes no sense to me. Explain it, please. 
I can state that a germinated seed is the beginning of a new tree. Which is perfectly true. Given time, a seed may become a tree and a germinated seed marks this beginning. However a germinated seed is not a new tree in itself. Does this make sense?

The links give specific embryologists and scientists. I listed a couple.

I'm not going to bother until you give me a list of credible scientist who is experts in the field of embryology that state from conception onwards the unborn is not a human being. 
Which is perfectly reasonable for a scientific argument. My argument is philosophical, so here are some resources for that view.


#336
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
Logically, a being is either human or it is not. It cannot be both a human and not a human at conception. The Law of Identity states the A = A. A human being is a human being. It is not some other type of being.

So what do you mean when you say "human being?" Define your terms.
Human Being: A member of Homo Sapiens with expression of personhood

Is it alive? The human DNA contained in sperm is injected into the egg where the two human DNA strands combine to form a new human being DIFFERENT from either the male donor or the woman. Then the egg is implanted in the uterus where the human being is born into the world nine months later. 
The key phrase is human being. If you're just going to respond that a new human being is a new human being because it's a new human being, why respond at all?

So what? The process of fertilization is the start of the new human being.
A zygote is one stage of the human beings growth, the beginning stage. What does it have to do with the world?
So what? It is still a human being. It is not another kind of being.
If a human being is defined by more than just biological components, and you have only argued that a zygote is a human being based on biological characteristics, logicially it follows that a zygote is not a human being

The process of human life has been documented from conception onward.
~Accurate, factual, and still not evidence~

No. Read the context of your statement before this. You compared the two in an analogy. I just used your analogy to show that as an oak starts with germination in the soil, so a human begins with fertilization of the egg by the sperm.
But your argument is not just that a human begins with fertilization of the egg by the sperm, but that the subsequent zygote is also a human being. By that logic, a germinated seed is also an oak tree. Right?

You were the one who made the distinction between a homo sapiens and a human being. You said that some homo sapiens are not human beings. 
But never did I equate human beings to some other species that is not homo sapiens.

At fertilization, it is not the woman for zygote has a different genetic makeup, different blood, and it starts to grow into what it is, with its external organs becoming evident after a period of time.

You are the one making assertion after assertion. Not once have you documented your position with anything scientific.
Which still doesn't make it a human being.

#337
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@PGA2.0
The term is from Latin. You did not supply the definition because that refutes what you said.
I didn't supply the definition because the definition of homo sapiens is self-evidence. I still don't see how it refutes anything.

What is this in context to? You cut out the rest of the dialog.
I misworded something. Essentially, your quote said something, you said the quote says this. I wanted to say the quote does not say this but my wording implies that the author was against your general viewpoint.

I don't think you really understand much about embryology.
I think I do understand embryology sufficiently well enough to a layman's degree. I simply think that you don't understand my argument

"Baby" is a word we use to describe a specific stage of human development, just like zygote is another, or teen is another.
Your point being?

It is starting to live its life. It is the first stage of its life (or an artificial divide we use in describing the human being).
I mean.. if you want to call living life "passing of time". Me, A life is not lived if there is no input, output or meaning. This is what people describe when they say "I don't have a life". Obviously they are living and despite their objections, they have some sort of input/output in life. In the case of a zygote though, a zygote literally is not living a life.

Do you understand what human nature is? It is your nature as a human being to be a person being just like it is the nature of a bird to fly. Even if it has not flown yet that is its nature, not our nature. If you are a human being you are developing a human personality and are a personal being. 
What is human personality? The sum of a persons memories, interactions and upbringing supported by genetic predispositions. Zygotes do not have human personality and are not developing human personality. At the very least not at this stage. Is a zygote then not a human being?

It is you who do not recognize when an individual human being starts. It is you who set up this artificial distinction about homo sapiens not always being human beings. I had to straighten you out on your deception. If it has human parents it will be human once fertilization takes place. It can't be any other kind of being if its parents are human. It is as plain and simple as that.
I told you when an individual human being starts. I showed you the the natural differences between a homo sapien and a human being. I have agreed on multiple occasions that when mating, homo sapiens produce more of the same species. I cannot help if you refuse to look at this from a philosophical perspective.

Everything seems to revolve around your faulty concepts. If it is not the woman's DNA how can you say it is part of the woman and not a separate human being? You can't (but you will because you are confused).
On the contrary, I do agree that a zygote has separate DNA to the father and mother and can be considered a separate organism to them both. However this does not make it a human being

Just stating a simple concept that you do not appear to understand because you continually misrepresent factual information.
Oh indeed? What factual information have a misrepresented?

So what? It does not change what is starting to grow in her.
I didn't say it did. But what it means is, that for all intents and purposes from the outside world, the zygote does not exist

How Long Does the Zygote Phase Last?
Don't strawman me. The entire point is that the early phases of pregnancy are in the general case undetectable

Irrelevant, so what?
Well with this premise it's pretty clear that if you can only make definitions by it's biological components, then it is not a human being

One way, in part, but that is not what makes it human. Being human is determined by your genetic makeup and nature and that gives expression to what you are in so many ways. 
That's why I've clearly separated homo sapiens and human beings. Homo sapiens is ultimately determined by genetics. It's a purely physical and biological description. Being a human being goes past genetics. Take animals for instance. Many people tend to ascribe some animals as human-like. This is due to their intelligence, and them exhibiting human-like actions. For examples, cetaceans and elephants are known to have "families" and mourn over "family" deaths. These emotional and social characteristics are described as being human-like. Hence when one lacks such characteristics, they cannot be described as human-like. In the case of a zygote, while they are of the homo sapiens species they are not human beings.

That is precisely what it is, a human being. Although our experiences enhance our humanity our genetic make determines that we will be human beings and that genetic makeup that makes us who we are starts at conception.
No. If you agree that on a philosophical level human beings are defined by more than just biological components, and you cannot describe a zygote past it's biology, then it logically follows that a zygote is not a human being.

Topic's author
#338
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
But a person is self-sustaining without anesthesia.
If the person was brain dead and was on anesthesia, then they need that life support to survive.

That would be an unsafe assumption <.<. Personally, it would take for some truly reprehensible acts for me to consider their "threshold" to be below 0.
I didn't know the definition of threshold, even after looking it up.  I assumed it was the sum of their positive and negative actions.  If someone robbed $2, it would be safe to assume that they are a burden on society, even if it's slight.  Is it justified to kill them for being a burden on society?

Having a baby has a critical impact on a mother's life and can severely impact both the mother's mental and physical state, as well as her finances and relationships.
Then she can set the kid up for adoption or she can use the 5 filter policy to relocate the child to someone consensual willing to take care of them.

Where either you do do it and suffer for it
Why would you be sad for setting up a kid up for adoption?  If you miss the kid, you can still visit the kid from time to time in the foster system if you want.  Besides, I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that your logic here is:

-Setting a kid up for adoption-> Causes a mother some emotional pain that she gets over eventually, knowing that the kid will have a better life then what she could have provided the kid at her fiscal level.  Something to be avoided.

-Killing the kid-> Making the woman in many situations even more depressed and sometimes the woman even commits suicide because of their abortion.  Something that should be rare but to be preferred over adoption.

This probably isn't correct and perhaps I am saying too much, but if this is your logic, I don't think that it is sound.

I consider existence to be predicated by the presence of any memories at all. 
I don't think this is accurate because if you are to value someone's life by whether or not they have memories to begin with, then you would consider an ant to be of equal value to a human because both the ant and the human have memories.  I'm saying that memories aren't a good way to determine someone's intrinsic worth.  There must be another way to determine intrinsic worth.  I'm suggesting chrosomes and cell sp

Foster kids get parents.  http://www.adopt.org/adoption-statistics, it states that over 94% of kids who get set up for adoption get adopted within 4 years.
I mean.. this is still less than the average
I believe that adopting a kid from the foster system is expensive and I'm assuming you do too.  If it costs $50,000 to adopt a kid, who would be willing to pay for that?  The person who barely has that money?  Or the person who has hundreds of thousands of dollars?  The person with hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The foster system I think is set up this way so only the people with hundreds of thousands of dollars would be the ones adopting, since they are the only ones who can afford it.  In other words, it is safe to say that they are above average in terms of their wealth.

GDP isn't a magical number that automatically increases the quality of life of the people however. It's simply an objective measure of a countries economy.
What causes the economy to grow?  People.  Too many would hurt, but when your population matches the carrying capacity, then that is the sweet spot.  America is far from our sweet spot.

If infrastructure cannot keep up with population growth, the populace suffers as a result.
Then infrastructure can keep up with the population growth.  This is partly why urban areas tend to have a higher GDP per capita then rural areas.  You cite India.  However, India is an extreme example.  It's a Goldilocks zone.  Too populated, many people starve.  Too non-populated, and your civilization barely industrializes since less minds are developing stuff.  This is why technological progress started accelerating at around the same time the population exploded in it's numbers.  If Abortion were illegal since Roe V Wade existed and no one aborted, the USA would have 375 million people instead of 320 million.  At 375 million people, we have half of the population of Europe, which is pretty rich and developed.

More importantly foster kids are definitely objectively impacted in someway: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/1145
That is because the foster kids have had a history of abuse.  However, the new foster kids that would go into the system that are basically the would be aborted kids wouldn't have suffered abuse as kids.  In other words, if they don't suffer abuse as kids because they got saved from abortion, then they don't become messed up.

I would like to conclude with this image of what abortion really is:

You're probably one of the most thorough and polite pro choicers I have met online.

#339
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998),

This is the same Keith Moore who believes that Muhammad is a messenger of God. Do you give credence to all of his beliefs?


#340
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
Start by using correct nomenclature.
How do you know the woman is pregnant and what does it have to do with you?
Topic's author
#341
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@disgusted
How do you know the woman is pregnant and what does it have to do with you?
It has nothing to do with me.  This is what makes the pro life movement selfless.  They have nothing to gain or to lose from their position, so their position comes entirely from morality, ethical consistency, and science.  Despite this, they advocate for others to have rights.  You can make a similar argument for slavery.  If slavery doesn't affect me, should I still allow others to be slaves?  No.  Just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean I shouldn't advocate against it.  Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.  Women couldn't vote.
#342
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
It has nothing to do with me.  This is what makes the pro life movement selfless.  They have nothing to gain or to lose from their position, so their position comes entirely from morality, ethical consistency, and science.  Despite this, they advocate for others to have rights.  You can make a similar argument for slavery.  If slavery doesn't affect me, should I still allow others to be slaves?  No.  Just because something doesn't affect me doesn't mean I shouldn't advocate against it.  Otherwise, slavery would still be legal.  Women couldn't vote.
Then stay out of it. The pro life movement has no place in a woman's body, so stay out of it. Whose morality? Yours? Your morality and ethics claim that women are second class and don't deserve the rights you demand for yourself. You demand that women don't have rights, you are a liar. Keep out of a woman's body unless she gives you permission. Just stay out.

#343
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
If the person was brain dead and was on anesthesia, then they need that life support to survive.
A brain dead person is already dead though right? So it's not really survival

I didn't know the definition of threshold, even after looking it up.  I assumed it was the sum of their positive and negative actions.  If someone robbed $2, it would be safe to assume that they are a burden on society, even if it's slight.  Is it justified to kill them for being a burden on society?
But it's not just about society. It's also about complex characteristics of humanity that can't be quantified. For example, what value do you give to a small act of altruism to another person? Therefore the easiest measure is not determining how many "points" an individual has, it's determining whether an individual has any "points" at all.

Then she can set the kid up for adoption or she can use the 5 filter policy to relocate the child to someone consensual willing to take care of them.
I didn't just mean raising a baby. Bearing an infant to term and birth also critically impact mothers.

Why would you be sad for setting up a kid up for adoption?  If you miss the kid, you can still visit the kid from time to time in the foster system if you want.  Besides, I don't mean to be rude, but it seems that your logic here is:

-Setting a kid up for adoption-> Causes a mother some emotional pain that she gets over eventually, knowing that the kid will have a better life then what she could have provided the kid at her fiscal level.  Something to be avoided.

-Killing the kid-> Making the woman in many situations even more depressed and sometimes the woman even commits suicide because of their abortion.  Something that should be rare but to be preferred over adoption.

This probably isn't correct and perhaps I am saying too much, but if this is your logic, I don't think that it is sound.
My logic here is

-Carrying a child to term. This is against a woman's will, a violation of her autonomy and has an large impact on her life. Then surrendering the child to the system. The mother is not fine. Nor is the baby. It has been introduced to the world in the cruelest way possible, unloved and without any advantages, and with every disadvantage possible.

vs

-Abortion. This is not the acting of killing a kid. In permissible pregnancy phases to abort, there are no personalities, emotions, memories or experiences to kill. It's a state of non-existence (in the sense of personhood) and there is no suffering.

I don't think this is accurate because if you are to value someone's life by whether or not they have memories to begin with, then you would consider an ant to be of equal value to a human because both the ant and the human have memories.  I'm saying that memories aren't a good way to determine someone's intrinsic worth.  There must be another way to determine intrinsic worth.  I'm suggesting chrosomes and cell sp
So to be clear, I value someone's life for their personhood. Or in another words, what makes someone a person. So this could definitely include memories, but it also covers a wide range characteristics. For example, the abilities to feel, socialise, collect experiences and instill experiences upon others. You could definitely make a good argument for personhood for soon to be born fetuses. However there is no good argument for the zygote.

I believe that adopting a kid from the foster system is expensive and I'm assuming you do too.  If it costs $50,000 to adopt a kid, who would be willing to pay for that?  The person who barely has that money?  Or the person who has hundreds of thousands of dollars?  The person with hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The foster system I think is set up this way so only the people with hundreds of thousands of dollars would be the ones adopting, since they are the only ones who can afford it.  In other words, it is safe to say that they are above average in terms of their wealth.
When it comes to child and family, money is no object. How much of your income would you sacrifice to ensure happiness in life? That said, I do not think it's as high as $50,000 anyway and is likely well within most family means.

What causes the economy to grow?~
I'll probably end it here in terms of an economic argument. Partially because I don't know jack about economics, partially because if you allowed for the dust to settle after the meteoric rise in population may indeed be beneficial and partially because of all pro-life arguments, an argument from an economic makes the least sense. I'll end it with a few thoughts that you can respond to if you like which I'll read, but I probably won't respond to.

Pro-life abortion laws represent an explosive growth in population. This is not something that the current infrastructure growth can account for, and given the complexities of infrastructure growth, it is not something that you can artificially force up to the levels of explosive population growth. Nor can any of the other systems in place. Imagine the first generation of such policy. You'd have the needs of an extra 650000~ kids to account for without the equivalent workforce to compensate.
Topic's author
#344
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@disgusted
Then stay out of it.
Would you "stay out of" a black person being enslaved?  What is the difference between abortion and slavery, (excluding the magnitude of both)?

 Whose morality? Yours?
It's a scientific claim.  Science confirms that a fetus is a human being.  If someone believed that rape was okay, they are allowed to believe that?  Yes.  Are they allowed to act on their morality to the extent of raping someone?  No.  Because of this, the government should enforce their anti-rape views on would be rapists.

Just as the government should enforce anti-rape views on rapists, they should enforce anti-abortion views on women(and men too).  How do they enforce it on men?  By not allowing them to ditch the women that he gets pregnant.

Your morality and ethics claim that women are second class and don't deserve the rights you demand for yourself. 
Democrats support aborting babies because they are a minority, female, or disability status(https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h299).  This means that the pro abortion rights crowd supports treating women like 2nd class citizens.

You demand that women don't have rights, you are a liar.
When have I said that?  I have said that killing babies is wrong, no matter who does it.

#345
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
Comparing crime and cancer is stupid. 
#346
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
Forcing a women to have a child is slavery.
#347
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
Would you "stay out of" a black person being enslaved?  What is the difference between abortion and slavery, (excluding the magnitude of both)?
Your red herring is absolutely stupid. If you can't understand the difference between abortion and rape that is understandable as an anti abortionist you believe you have right over the woman's body just like a rapist does.
 Whose morality? Yours?
It's a scientific claim. 
MORALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCER

Science confirms that a fetus is a human being.  If someone believed that rape was okay, they are allowed to believe that?  Yes.  Are they allowed to act on their morality to the extent of raping someone?  No.  Because of this, the government should enforce their anti-rape views on would be rapists.
You keep avoiding the question, it's really pathetic.
Just as the government should enforce anti-rape views on rapists, they should enforce anti-abortion views on women(and men too).  How do they enforce it on men?  By not allowing them to ditch the women that he gets pregnant.
Pro lifers are no different to rapists. They both feel they have the right to any woman's body. Fuckin' numpty.
Your morality and ethics claim that women are second class and don't deserve the rights you demand for yourself. 
I deleted this crap.
You demand that women don't have rights, you are a liar.
When have I said that?  I have said that killing babies is wrong, no matter who does it.
Your entire argument is based on your belief that all women are subject to your pathetic misogynist rule.

ANSWER THIS QUESTION

Tell me what gives you the right know to what happens in any woman's body?


Topic's author
#348
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Forcing a women to have a child is slavery.
Forcing a kid to die infringed on the rights that a non controlling party should have.  A woman enduring 9 months of pain from something she chose to do is not as bad as a fetus losing their life from something they did not choose to do, especially if a woman can set the kid up for adoption.  You state, "bodily autonomy" however why not give this body autonomy to a fetus?  They depend on the mother yes, but so does a 1 month old.  Should a mother be allowed to kill a 1 month old? You have to live with your actions.  If you have sex without an IUD, then you should face the consequences of bearing a child.  It's entirely your fault you had sex in the 1st place.

I therefore wouldn't call the "pro choice" side pro choice.  I would call them pro-irresponsibility.

Comparing crime and cancer is stupid. 
What does this mean?

Topic's author
#349
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@disgusted
If you can't understand the difference between abortion and rape that is understandable as an anti abortionist you believe you have right over the woman's body just like a rapist does.
There is a difference between abortion and rape.  Abortion is worse then rape.  Abortion kills an innocent human and ruins their life by having it not exist, all rape does is it worsens an existing life.  If a fetus is a human being, then killing them should be classified as murder.

You keep avoiding the question, it's really pathetic.
Your question is:

Tell me what gives you the right know to what happens in any woman's body?
Because... there is an innocent human being in there that needs protection from tyrannical women who decide to kill them in order to survive.

Pro lifers are no different to rapists. They both feel they have the right to any woman's body.
A pro lifer defends innocent human life.  A rapist rapes innocent human life.  Moreover a pro lifer doesn't care about a woman's body.  They don't care about the arm.  They don't care about the leg.  They don't even care about the uterus.  they care about protecting the life form that is in it.  Ever notice how everyone who supports abortion is already born.  The same is not true with regards to the pro life side and them not being pregnant.  There are many pro lifers who will get pregnant.  
#350
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
Forcing a woman to use her body to keep cells alive is slavery. Forcing a woman go give up a child she never wanted to birth is slavery. The fetus has no autonomy until it is viable outside mom. No one who is pro choice has every said any born child should be terminated cause mom says so. Women who kill a child go to prison. There is no child dying. There is no child yet. It has nothing to do with you hating women who have sex. They are free to do so. They are free to have an abortion. That is a matter of rights and law. 

What does this mean?

Using this logic, why would cops even exist?  It's not like the criminal hurts them.  They exist to give rights to others.  Just as the pro life movement is trying to give rights to others.
You are comparing a medical issue with a criminal issue. The police arrest those who are violating the rights of others. They are hired and trained to do so.  Doctors handle medical issues. They are hired and trained to do so. 
#351
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Any person who is passable in an investigation can become a foster parents through the state or an agency and adopt at almost no cost. They will be paid to train to work with foster kids, paid to help them, feed them, etc. The most it might cost is the investigation fee which can be 300 bucks. Possible attorney fees if you are not working with DHHR. If a baby/ toddler has any medical/physical/ emotional issues they are rarely adopted and  once a child is 10, even if they have no  issues they are not adopted. There are kids in the system who are not abused but have lost their parents for various reasons including the parents death. 
Topic's author
#352
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@dustryder
If the person was brain dead and was on anesthesia, then they need that life support to survive.
A brain dead person is already dead though right? So it's not really survival

So then if a full grown person has heart problems and their heart stops working, and they need life support to survive.  Is it okay to kill someone who is very dependent on others to survive?  

But it's not just about society. It's also about complex characteristics of humanity that can't be quantified. For example, what value do you give to a small act of altruism to another person?
If they are a criminal who did something moderately bad, it is safe to assume that they have very little altruism.  Does this mean that killing them is okay?

Bearing an infant to term and birth also critically impact mothers.
Emotions are temporary.  Abortion also causes negative emotions.  Death is permanent.  It is better for a woman to endure some emotions temporarily from giving birth then for her to endure possibly worse emotions from an abortion and an innocent kid dying?

Then surrendering the child to the system. The mother is not fine. Nor is the baby. It has been introduced to the world in the cruelest way possible, unloved and without any advantages, and with every disadvantage possible.
The alternative would be surrendering the baby to planned parenthood.  It has not been "introduced to the world in the cruelest way possible".  It would be worse if the baby was dead.  Death is one of the worst things, if not the worst thing you can do to someone. The fetus won't get messed up in the system so they won't be at an disadvantage.

Abortion. This is not the acting of killing a kid. In permissible pregnancy phases to abort, there are no personalities, emotions, memories or experiences to kill. It's a state of non-existence (in the sense of personhood) and there is no suffering.
Abortion is the action of killing a fetus or someone more developed in the womb.  An ant has personalities, emotions, memories and experiences.  Is it the same to kill an ant as it is to kill a human?  No.  There has to be another way to figure out who is a human and who is not.  My suggested method is chromosomes and cell specialization (to filter out cancer cells).

You could definitely make a good argument for personhood for soon to be born fetuses.
How soon would you classify this?  If you aren't drawing the line at conception, then where would you draw the line?  Believe it or not, I don't support "life" being at conception.  I would consider it at 5 weeks, when the cells specialize.  The thing is abortions are performed after 5 weeks because they are impossible to occur before then; we don't have the technology for it.  Since the only abortions that can exist are those after 5 weeks, I prefer that they are all illegal.

When it comes to child and family, money is no object.
For families who don't have enough money, money is an object.  This filters out the poor people so they aren't adopting so the kid gets a better life.

It costs $20,000 to $40,000 to adopt a child (https://adoption.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-adopt-a-child).  I was a little off.

Pro-life abortion laws represent an explosive growth in population.
They represent a slight growth in population.  With Roe V Wade, the US population would be 320 million.  Without it, it would be 375 million.  375 million people would benefit the US more because of urbanization and more technological development would take place.

Interesting how you didn't respond to my picture of an aborted baby.
#353
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
You demand that women don't have rights, you are a liar.

When have I said that?
Your entire argument is predicated on it. Where have you ever mentioned the woman (the only person involved) other than calling her a murderer for exercising her right to her bodily autonomy?
Topic's author
#354
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@disgusted
Your a close minded troll.  Your ironically being ignored.
#355
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
Once again the godist runs away yelling claims of victory back over his shoulder.
I'm always impressed by that< sarcasm>.
#356
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Alec
So then if a full grown person has heart problems and their heart stops working, and they need life support to survive.  Is it okay to kill someone who is very dependent on others to survive?  
Well a full grown person still has personhood, no matter the state of their body and that should be respected

If they are a criminal who did something moderately bad, it is safe to assume that they have very little altruism.  Does this mean that killing them is okay?
So altruism was only an example to demonstrate the complex motivations behind every action. Think of robin hood. Was he heroic or villainous?

Emotions are temporary.  Abortion also causes negative emotions.  Death is permanent.  It is better for a woman to endure some emotions temporarily from giving birth then for her to endure possibly worse emotions from an abortion and an innocent kid dying?
Well we can't quantify whether emotions are "worse". And apart from that, abortion also entails physical trauma, so it wouldn't just be emotions. Finally, it's not about a child dying. It's about the termination of a pregnancy.

The alternative would be surrendering the baby to planned parenthood.  It has not been "introduced to the world in the cruelest way possible".  It would be worse if the baby was dead.  Death is one of the worst things, if not the worst thing you can do to someone. The fetus won't get messed up in the system so they won't be at an disadvantage.
Death is certainly not the worst thing you can do to someone. There are many cases in which death is counted as a blessing. The only cases in which inflicting death is undeniably wrong is when the participant is unwilling. In the case of abortion specifically, to me, there must be a personal existence for death to be considered either bad or good. In which case the "death" in this case is purely a neutral act. Because pre-natal stages have limited personal existence.

Finally, I can't imagine a worse way to be brought in the world. You've been rejected by parents, so you are denied the typically unconditional love of parents. And from that, you are denied your family, history and cultural background. You do not have the parents financial support and are instead tossed into a lottery system. For that is what the foster care system essentially is isn't it?

Abortion is the action of killing a fetus or someone more developed in the womb.  An ant has personalities, emotions, memories and experiences.  Is it the same to kill an ant as it is to kill a human?  No.  There has to be another way to figure out who is a human and who is not.  My suggested method is chromosomes and cell specialization (to filter out cancer cells).
Well we already know whether something is a human or not. Whether they are of the species homo sapiens. The only decision is to decide which homo sapiens are human beings. And in my opinion, that's through personhood. Which can be described through personalities, emotions, memories and experiences.

How soon would you classify this?  If you aren't drawing the line at conception, then where would you draw the line?  Believe it or not, I don't support "life" being at conception.  I would consider it at 5 weeks, when the cells specialize.  The thing is abortions are performed after 5 weeks because they are impossible to occur before then; we don't have the technology for it.  Since the only abortions that can exist are those after 5 weeks, I prefer that they are all illegal.
Abortions can occur before 5 weeks. Your source of information is wrong. Apart from that, based off this timeline https://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2013/10/03/when-does-a-human-life-begins-17-timepoints/

I would say that anything before week 8 can be done without moral reservation. Between 14 to 21 can be done with some slight moral reservation. Anything after should be considered case by case.

For families who don't have enough money, money is an object.  This filters out the poor people so they aren't adopting so the kid gets a better life.

It costs $20,000 to $40,000 to adopt a child (https://adoption.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-adopt-a-child).  I was a little off.
This is true if you mean families that physically do not have the requisite funds. However some things are worth saving for. Just as gamers might save for the next-gen graphics card and collectors might save for a rare item to add to their collection, so families save for children. And children, arguably represent the best cost for value.

Also I note your article says that foster care adoptions cost between 0-2000. So it's not quite a poor person filter.

Interesting how you didn't respond to my picture of an aborted baby.
I mean.. I don't know what response you wanted from me. It's not an argument in and of itself and it's not like I haven't seen images of pre-natal abortions before. My only response was basically "Hmm ok".
#357
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
It is better for a woman to endure some emotions temporarily from giving birth
And how the fuck would you know that?


Death is one of the worst things, if not the worst thing you can do to someone.
And how the fuck would you know that?

I would consider it at 5 weeks, when the cells specialize. 
And how the fuck would you know that?

Science considers it to be about 23 weeks and they know immeasurably more than you as you prove with every line you type.
#358
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Alec
My questions are all beyond your capacity to answer and you therefore are obligated to run away, poor you.
#359
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@disgusted
Science considers it to be about 23 weeks and they know immeasurably more than you as you prove with every line you type.
Disgusted, trying to have rational, logical common sense discussion with a Trumpanzee is no different then trying to have rational, logical common sense discussion with a drunk.

Neither have the capacity to do so. Go figure.

It is as tho Idio-umps mental instability is transferred  to his Trumpanzee clergy/worshippers via some medium Ive yet to put my finger on. Go figure and get back to me.

M Pence is just plain weirdo. I think, that he may think, he is the white night of Apocalypse that is going to ride his white horse through the masses as they follow him to the end rapture{ whatever that is }. Go figure.

Go figure = go calculate{ resultants } and nothing these radical, religous extremist in any way has a rational resultant that I can see.

Seriously, day after day, they lick idio-umps butt and all of his floor droppings. Go figure.

They appear to be in fear of his base aka  @**?**$**?**@  brain dead{?}. 






Topic's author
#360
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@disgusted
My questions are all beyond your capacity to answer and you therefore are obligated to run away, poor you.
No, you were just being extremely rude and I hope that you become pro life in the future.  BTW, just because your pro life does not make you a rapist.  I would argue in fact that strong pro lifers are significantly less likely to be rapists because they know the consequences of sex; abortion, something they would want to avoid.

What do you think of aborting a fetus because they are not the right race, gender, or because the fetus might have a disability?