Abortion

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 255
#181
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok...............so do you think murder is good?

The death penalty (whether it should be banned or not) is an entirely different argument from abortion, so I am not going to argue two arguments at a time.
Try to stay on topic. 
It was entirely your argument. You tried to justify your position by arguing that abortion is murder to which I pointed out is meaningless. If you didn't want to discuss it you shouldn't have brought it up

WHAT QUALITIES? You never listed any qualities. If you did, please enlighten me. 

So, you are basically saying that viability defines a person, that is the ability to survive on their own makes them a valuable human. 
No, I'm not. You are conflating two different points; viability and personhood.

Viability is what makes the biggest difference here, in this conversation, because you continually try to use examples of fully developed human beings to argue why it's wrong to terminate a fetus. The circumstances are not the same.

You also fail to address the main point I raised on this. If the man in the coma requires resources to stay alive and there is no one willing to provide those resources, who is responsible for keeping him alive? 

You did not refute my argument here. 
When a mother has sex, she is willing to the possibility of a pregnancy. 
I've addressed this argument numerous times, you  continue to act as though I never said anything.

Once again, your statement is on its own, meaningless. You have yet to provide a justification apart from asserting the very position you are trying to justify in the first place (aka begging the question). 

The fact that she might get pregnant is only a big deal because you assert it's a big deal, but you cannot explain why. That's kind of the whole point you are trying to prove. Without that, there is no reason to regard her decision to engage in sex as punishable, which is the foundation your argument is standing on. So until you can do that your argument stands on nothing.

That is irrelevant to any individual couple since no individual couple is responsible for that.
If they decide to have sex, they are. 
This is a laughably absurd argument.

No individual couple is responsible for nor obligated to contribute to the continuation of our species.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same people who peach freedom tend to be the same people who want to tell everyone else what is allowed to go on in their own bedrooms and/or what obligations are thrusted upon them - because they said so. How utterly ridiculous.
#182
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@Double_R
@hey-yo
Double, I think Hey-Yo did my argument for me.  Thanks Hey-yo.

As for a complex subject, sure it is.  There is a lot in the balance to decide if a woman gets an abortion.  I am on the fence about rape, incest, and danger to the mother.  I am only making the point that over 90% are done for selfish reasons.  The other 7% is the hard part. I get that there are more than selfish reasons for an abortion, I was only focusing on one and the the vast majority of abortions done.  Again, if women's rights are designed for irresponsible couples to get away with murder, then it is a fruitless movement and one made from Hell itself.

As for argument that the definitions of "Zygotes" and "embryos" means they are not babies, I find to be ridiculous.  We all know that the forming human in the womb will become a "baby" human later.  It's not as if we will be surprised that this "zygote" will turn out to be a cat at birth.  Like a quarter turn toy dispenser, you just don't know which one you are going to get?  We all know that this zygote will turn embryo, turn fetus, then turn neonate, then turn toddler,  and then . . . and then . . . and we all recognize that the mass of cells was a baby the whole time developing in the womb.
Topic's author
#183
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@hey-yo
3. 

This was written by a biologist. 
Their definition was at conception.  But this was written in the 20th century, so I don’t think an article older than I am is reliable.
#184
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Why would it not be reliable? 
Should history or consistency provide input to the accuracy of a given claim? 

I dont know if the word claim is best in that sentence. I had "information" but that sounded weird too
Topic's author
#185
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@hey-yo
Why would it not be reliable? 
Scientific discoveries tend to change a lot as time goes on.  50 years ago, we thought the ICE age was coming back.  Now some people say the opposite (with the climate change that people want OTHERS to get renewable energy for, but not them personally).

Should history or consistency provide input to the accuracy of a given claim? 
Can you rephrase?


#186
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@TheUnderdog
@hey-yo
I hope you don't mind me jumping in Hey-Yo. . .

Underdog, the idea of a global ice age had nothing to do with science.  The same for global warming or climate change.  They are all made up from the ruling class to scare people into doing what they want.  They use some facts to try to associate the propaganda of climate change.  So to say that scientific discoveries change, that is not true.  Narratives change, not facts.  Look into their articles and try to see the difference between facts, speculation and opinion.  You will find that there are less facts than anything in those.

Just because a scientific discovery is old doesn't mean that it is out-dated and needs to be re-discovered.
Topic's author
#187
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@DavidAZ
Just because a scientific discovery is old doesn't mean that it is out-dated and needs to be re-discovered.
Possible, but I have a hard time trusting sources older than I am.
#188
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
Can you rephrase? 
Hm...


1. Yeh so. The older x is or the more x is repeated in science should indicate trust because there is consistency in experiments associated with x. 

Do you agree or disagree with this statement? 


i do not keep up with the times but. Do you believe or trust that the earth is center of the universe and round? What about gravity? 

2. What about something from 2008? 
[1] Keith L. Moore.  Before We Are Born:  Essentials of Embryology [Philadelphia:  Saunders], 2008, page 2. 
Zygote/embryo are identified as a human being in this. 


3. I also ask, what makes an embryo to not be a human? 


4. We can see a change in opinion about what is or is not a human being after the push for abortion. Where the change in opinion is for supporting abortion. This should indicate falsification to justify abortion yes?
#189
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
2. What about something from 2008? 
[1] Keith L. Moore.  Before We Are Born:  Essentials of Embryology [Philadelphia:  Saunders], 2008, page 2. 
Zygote/embryo are identified as a human being in this. 
Problem with citing sources in this debate is that nearly every damn person, professional to layman, have a lapse in their linguistical abilities. Reading comprehension suffers. Logic suffers. Common sense suffers. Rationality suffers. Reality suffers. All supplanted by unchecked appeals to emotion with a flare of militancy. 

When the term [a] is used, it is an identifier. A prefix or inseparable particle. When you put [a] before human being, you are clearly talking about you, your opponent, me, and anyone else reading this debate/discussion. We are human beings, [a] pregnancy is not. 

Potentiality =/= Actuality. Never has. Never will. That is reality. Emotional appeals of idiocy =/= reality. 


3. I also ask, what makes an embryo to not be a human? 
Again, you are using [a]. Grammatical error. It is human in origin, just not [a] human (being). 


4. We can see a change in opinion about what is or is not a human being after the push for abortion. Where the change in opinion is for supporting abortion. This should indicate falsification to justify abortion yes?

Fetal viability is the ONLY option/factor in the debate of abortion. Period. 
#190
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
Lol. No when I use " human being" or "a human being" I refer to any and all human Organisms that can be identified as being a part of the human species, including a zygote or embryo or fetus. I do not discriminate in that way. 

Pregnacy describes a series of biological changes and/or a period (which references time) from conception to birth. 


Your dehumanization provides enough evidence as to how much you care about reality ;)  

3. Evidence? I am asking for a why amd evidence but get nothing. Thanks. 

4. Uh no. The debate of abortion involves all aspects including who is making money from it, the history behind it, how procedures are done, how humans develope in the womb, etc.

The history is very dark and includes missinformation as advocates push to change scientific understandings. Like your attempt to insult despite the book providing clear cut information. 


#191
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
Starting your reply with “lol” …

You lost before you even began. 

And you clearly don’t comprehend the distinct inherent differences between potential and actual organisms. 

A zygote is not equal to an actual [a] human being. 

Linguistically you epically fail, again. 

So uneducated you are. As many you anti-abortion folk are. 
#192
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DavidAZ
For sure. Og was out hunting Woolly Mammoth when his I Phone rang.


Science is as science does.

And the reason why do what we do now, and not what we once did.


Science is the practical application of intellect and knowledge.

Nothing more, nothing less.


Fearing science is denying the future.


#193
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@hey-yo
We recognize their humanity.  
If there was an argument before this sentence I certainly did not pick up on it. It seemed to be a few paragraphs about semantics. I’m talking about the qualities that make one a person.

I can call the sperm sitting inside my nuts right now a human, that doesn’t mean it is morally entitled to rights.

Focus on the sentence provided. "abortion stops." There is nothing to "stop" if a human life is not there to stop. Abstenance prevents conception from occuring, does not stop a human life.
An early stage fetus does not in any meaningful way qualify as a “human life”. Your entire argument here is based off of semantics and technicalities.

So in this regard, abstinence is no different. Your point here is that the potential of the fetus to develop grants it rights, but that potential was there before that point. It’s just a question of where you decided to draw the line. Conception is a nice and neat place to do so for the sake of argument, but there is nothing meaningful at this point to point to. It’s just a useful place to make your argument sound legitimate. You only see conception as the irrefutable beginning of life because you are already pro life.
#194
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@DavidAZ
We all know that the forming human in the womb will become a "baby" human later.
Exactly. And when it does that will go a long way in proving it deserves rights.
#195
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@Double_R
I agree with you on the issue of at what point does this baby have human rights.  If it starts at conception and the baby dies within the womb for whatever reason, do they start an investigation?  Are there criminal charges?  Who will enforce this?

It would be hard to legally enforce any law that would have any miscarriage lead to an investigation.  So to institute a LAW like murder to a unborn baby is nearly impossible and impactable to enforce.

So that would mean that we can set a ground rule that human babies are important and that we should not needlessly kill them when they are inconvenient.  The other abortions can be debated (I.E. incest , rape, danger to mother).  I'd say, start the law there and any rape or incest would have to have a police report.  Any danger to mother would have to have a specific doctor's note.  

However the over whelming majority of abortions are not the cases above, therefore, it is morally wrong to kill a baby for the sake of them being in the way.
#196
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@zedvictor4
@TheUnderdog
@Double_R
Zed, I'm not sure where you are going with your post to me, but if you are implying that I am afraid of science because I don't believe in the climate change trash, then you are wrong.  Science cannot be manipulated, minds can.  So if there is something that can be proven and reproduced again, then I can believe it, but speculation and narrative pushing is not science.  You do realize that they changed the name of "global warming" to "climate change" because there was no science to say that the globe is constantly heating up?

I'm not trying to get into a climate change debate so I'll turn it to abortion.  Just because some guy with a college degree changes definitions of what we have already discovered to be true, doesn't mean it is.

Here is a question for everyone, If we decide to call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?  If you said 5, then you are the one that is believing everything someone tells you and not what is absolute.  The correct answer is 4, the fact that we call a tail a leg, doesn't mean that it is a leg. (Abraham Lincoln)
#197
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Double_R
Lol. Oh the old "i can call sperm human too" shtick. 

Well first, I did not make a claim in the sense I am argueing for something. I am stating what a pro life person does when using a specific word that describes a human. We recognize humanity within a person. 

Although you can call sperm a human being, you would lack biological evidence to qualify them as an organism. Instead they are identifed as part of our sex organ. 

We can also see how sperm have a short life span where they do not develop into an embryo fetus, or toddler if allowed to proceed a normal life span or even 2 years. Once a sperm enters an egg, it ceases to exist. 

The fertilized egg, however, develops and has qualities to be a human organism. All we need is dna, chromosone count, and ability to develop as is average means to develop.


2. Fetus does not qualify as human life? 
You have no evidence. You take your own conditions as an adult and apply it to a lesser developed human. Thats not science, moral, or pratical. 

And no. I am not talking about potential. 
#198
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@hey-yo
How do you deal with the "Trapped in a burning fertility clinic" problem? 
#199
DavidAZ
DavidAZ's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 345
1
2
8
DavidAZ's avatar
DavidAZ
1
2
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Ludo, I looked up the burning clinic question.  I really hope you are playing devils advocate for this question and not that you really think this is a valid argument.

This is such a stupid question and the answer is obvious.  Save the toddler.  But that doesn't mean there is no significance to human babies.  

Let's switch it up, you are in a burning building and you can only save one person.  A young black man or an old white woman.  In either situation you could be accused of some sort racism or sexism or geriatric hating, etc.  Both are important, but you can only save one, so you will put more emphasis on your view of importance. Save the young man and now you put NO significance to the older woman?  Why the extremes?  Why does one action mean the alternative has to go to the other extreme end?

These stupid "what if" questions are exactly that, stupid.  Stupid for being unreal in any situation.  Stupid for being made up as the perfect scenario to try to stump somebody.  Dumb gotcha questions really displays the intelligence of the messenger, dumb.


#200
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@DavidAZ
This is such a stupid question and the answer is obvious.  Save the toddler.  
Why?
#201
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
Starting your post complaining about laughter means you have no premise(s) for yor conclusion and no basis to actually argue a given point. 

Please instead of just providing circular arguent, provide a definition for "human being."

Id take any dictionary at the moment. 
#202
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
Hey thanks for asking..this is an easy question. I assume you are asking or suggesting that there is a building on fire and there are embryo(s) near by that can be saved or a trapped boy right? 

Phsh.  I use as we all should use reality ..
First we examine like scenarios that affect doctors and firefighters. See thesw types of decisions are made often because in any given scenario person a may be in more direct danger than person b or vise versa. 

Neither firefighter, medic, police, or doctor base their decision on who is worth more or who has value. This choice is based on who needs the attention first based on conditions that apply in that scenario. 

There are many examples that can be given and each one will express the same thing. As davidAZ did, put in any person in place of embryo or toddler or whom ever and the professionals who go in will all say the same thing. Saving a or b depends on the situation. 

For me I have no problem answering toddler because of any possible given scenario or outcome, the toddler may actually be alive. 

Seee here is the thing people dont consider when they ask the burning building question.  Embryos need a specific environment to live/exist. They recide in giant freezers that are made to withstand fires.  Oh jaw dropping! Yes that is right. The embryos are already safe! Or if anyone wants to say they are out in the open. Well guess what. They are already dead because they cant survive in that environment OR I have no way in knowing - as only the scientists would know - a.) Embryos are alive b.) The thing Im looking at is actually an embryo that could be alive. 

Apply real life to what if questions and you get real answers. 

No possible outcome or answer creates a scenario where there is more value in one human vs. another. The conditions to the answer relies on real life conditions including but not limited to, knowing whats going on, how dangerous the environment is, etc. 

Oh. And there is a third option that anyone could answer with. If toddler and embryos are trapped in fire building - and I can see them being trapped. I am trapped too because each facility that houses embryos would not have it out in the open for anyone to get to. Silly to suggest I can save anyone if I am trapped too. But maybe this is a "im not playing that game" type of answer. 
#203
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@hey-yo
Okay, so based on the response above, you would also save the baby, or are you saying "please add these conditions into the hypothetical?"

I get that it's frustrating, and yes it's a hypothetical, but the toddler and the 1000 embryos face the same fate in the hypothetical. You can only save one before the stairs burn down and doom the other. So I'm wondering why you chose to save the toddler. Accordin gto pro life folks, embryos are indeed alive, so leaving 1000 to burn rather than just the 1 seems like it should have some sort of reason behind it.  So why save the toddler? Once the fire eats the building, the freezer you're counting on is also burned, so the result is the same, no?

What situation would cause you to save the embryos? Can you come up with one?
#204
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
I would technically, as I normally do respond with, I am unable to save anyone. 

However my effert would be for the toddler because that is all my expertise would allow. 

Even if I try for embryos, like I said, they might die on the way out or already be dead, or are aleady safe and do not need to be saved. In terms of the whole building going up in flames the embryos have a better chance of survival where they are. 

Even if someone says, "oh its just a hypothetical" any given answer expresses value. No answer can express value because:
A. The person giving question is applying their own answer to the question and how another may answer. They themselves will always assert their value in the answer but have not provided evidence for why there is objective value. 
B. Any given person answering is giving their own opinion and therefore not giving an objective value because our opinions can contradict the objective truth. 

Either way there is nothing objective about a person's response. Why? Because humans act outside an objective truth. Especially if my child is involved, I dont give a shit. Im taking care of my boy. But this is also because of my experience in lossing a child too. And every single human has some bias or experience that will influence their choice opposite to what is an objective truth. 

For the doctor who has to choose which patient to see first, the bais is in his profession and knowledge. Firefighters have and will abandon a building on fire if it is unsafe for them to be in it. These conditions always apply to any given scenario where the objective truth is not expressed in human action. 

Edit: you ever look at how people respond to high stressed moments like shootings or what ever threatens our life? There are three options, regardless of what is threatening us. Run, fight, or stuck (third one I always forget its name but its the dear in the headlights kind of stuck).  

A person may answer that question as toddler but in real life run away to save no one. Or be completely unable to do anything and die with the rest of them. 
#205
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@hey-yo
That kind of sounds like a lot of dissembling, but okay, thanks for answering. 

I'm not sure how the embryos are safe if the entire building is engulfed in flames, but apparently you know the hypothetical model number and fire rating of the freezers in this fertility clinic. For me the answer is baby because babies are people.
#206
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
Conception is a nice and neat place to do so for the sake of argument, but there is nothing meaningful at this point to point to. It’s just a useful place to make your argument sound legitimate. You only see conception as the irrefutable beginning of life because you are already pro life.

No. I became prolife because the science  behind "a new human life begins at conception" turned me in that direction. 

#207
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@ludofl3x
That kind of sounds like a lot of dissembling, but okay, thanks for answering. 

I'm not sure how the embryos are safe if the entire building is engulfed in flames, but apparently you know the hypothetical model number and fire rating of the freezers in this fertility clinic. For me the answer is baby because babies are people

I watched a documentary on ivf after learning that a youtuber/gamer "cyanide" was among the first ivf ever in their respected country- and then saw it again on pbs. 

So all clinics and facilities that house sperm or embryos or ivf embryos are required to house them in freezers that are fire resistent, earthquake resistent, natural disaster resistant, and 100% connected to back up generators that are undergorund. The generators are underground not necessarily the freezers. 

This makes sense because that is how they make money and they do not want to get sued. One clinic had a million if not billion dollar lawsuit for allowing some freezers to fail, causing loss. I dont remember what was in the freezers but they have customers with expectations. 

Also did research paper on sperm donation. I have the unlucky or lucky habit of knowing random information or being x in some disscusions.

The last abortion thread i was on (1 year ago), someone blamed me for not knowing and never being able to know what its like to raise a child. I just so happen to be a parent. :/ 


#208
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ludofl3x
How do you deal with the "Trapped in a burning fertility clinic" problem?
Easy. If the choice is 1 born baby vs. 1000 unborns, I would save the 1000 unborns. The gain on the amount of life is obvious, assuming 1000 unborns will safely be born and grow into 1000 humans.
#209
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ludofl3x
For me the answer is baby because babies are people.
You only save one life. I save 1000.

#210
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
Starting your post complaining about laughter means you have no premise(s) for yor (sic) conclusion and (sic) no basis to actually argue a given point. 
No, it means I have no tolerance for immature individuals who come off as pompous as you continue to do; it detracts from anything you think you may have to say. Which is not much of anything at all given all the appeals to emotion and ad hominem arguments you toss out there, clearly hoping something eventually sticks.


Please (sic) instead of just providing circular arguent, (sic) provide a definition for "human being."

Id (sic) take (sic) any dictionary at the moment. 
Look in the mirror.