This is Why Abortion Should be Legal.

[Potato]

Quote:Potato, I don't see what my religion has to do with this. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense for someone to kill their offspring before they're born once they've reached the stage at which they're close to being human, much closer than, say, a fertilized egg. It doesn't really make sense for me, anyway - you might have crystal clear reasoning for it.

"It's not an easy thing to mess with the sanctity of life"-doa. that's wtf ur religion has to do with it. all this "sanctity" bullshit. there is no logical reason to say that a fucking mindless parasitic fetus should be given any moral precedence over a real, thinking, feeling, conscious human. but blind belief in the illogical is just what makes up religion. this pro-life bullshit is just a small sample of all the bullshit that religious organizations continuously spew out to get soaked up by their "flocks". it's no surprise that almost all of the anti-abortion people are religious, and that almost all of the atheists are pro-choice, and don't tell my you haven't noticed this correlation. but it's nice to see you denying this fact

Quote:I would put it at the point where the fetus is conscious.

Quote:I don't think we'll ever be able to know for sure. I'm going to be safe and say we draw the line somewhere around the 2nd trimester.

why not put it at birth? there is no need to put it any later, and they're definitely not conscious prior to birth.

[Ky]

Sanctity of life is an expression - I don't mean it in the religious sense. It happens to be my opinion that life is worth preserving - I don't need some church to tell me that (and I'm pretty sure they'd tell me the opposite, considering how eternal and carefree the afterlife is supposed to be).

You're oversimplifying - the issue is simple, but not quite that simple. It isn't the preference of a parasite's life/comfort/other over a host's - it's the preference of the life of a potential human over the mere comfort of an existing one. You can at least pretend to see my point here.

I'm detecting quite a bit of circumstantial ad hominem (claiming my interest is pro-life simply because I'm a Christian) here, and it seems you're implying that this correlation you speak of is also causation (which would be incorrect). You've also neglected to see the enormous number of exceptions to the rule. I know I've made quite a few sweeping generalizations, but it's like you're trying to be fallacious.

Also, how do you know they aren't at least partially conscious prior to birth? After all, there are studies that suggest otherwise. Furthermore, why should consciousness be the only deciding factor?

[Desu]

I wouldn't put it at birth because some babies are born prematurely and do manage to stay alive. I believe the most premature baby ever born was around 26-27 weeks which is about 6 1/2 months. Babies born before 6 months are advised to not be resuscitated stating it is in the best interests of the child because there are too many complications and the child will be suffering.

[Lime]

Quote:Also, how do you know they aren't at least partially conscious prior to birth?

Prior to birth? Of course a fetus will be conscious prior to birth. Excuse my crudeness, but it is not imbued with some magical power simply by popping its head out of a vagina.

Quote:Furthermore, why should consciousness be the only deciding factor?

Because it's what defines human life. People in permanent comas are technically still alive, yet we don't think of them as such anymore. They don't experience anything and they feel nothing. For all that matters, they may as well be dead.

[Ky]

That was truthbait, Lime - you didn't have to answer.

[Potato]

Quote:it's the preference of the life of a potential human over the mere comfort of an existing one.

exactly. you're comparing potential moral consequences to actual moral consequences. the potential human will not suffer from not existing, whereas real people will from the outlawing of abortion.

Quote:I'm detecting quite a bit of circumstantial ad hominem (claiming my interest is pro-life simply because I'm a Christian) here, and it seems you're implying that this correlation you speak of is also causation (which would be incorrect).

no you're incorrect. you didn't say "it's not an easy thing to mess with life" you said "it's not an easy thing to mess with the sanctity. of. life" which implies, that it's the "sanctity," not the life itself that is not an easy thing to mess with. and sanctity is just religious importance or holiness.

Quote:You can at least pretend to see my point here.

naw i keep it real. i don't bullshit around like you

Quote:Also, how do you know they aren't at least partially conscious prior to birth? After all, there are studies that suggest otherwise.

what studies

Quote:Furthermore, why should consciousness be the only deciding factor?

what other factors do you think should be included?

[Ky]

(04-01-2013 07:22 PM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:it's the preference of the life of a potential human over the mere comfort of an existing one.

exactly. you're comparing potential moral consequences to actual moral consequences. the potential human will not suffer from not existing, whereas real people will from the outlawing of abortion.

...The potential human will not know what it is like to exist! That is far worse than temporary discomfort.

(04-01-2013 07:22 PM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:I'm detecting quite a bit of circumstantial ad hominem (claiming my interest is pro-life simply because I'm a Christian) here, and it seems you're implying that this correlation you speak of is also causation (which would be incorrect).

no you're incorrect. you didn't say "it's not an easy thing to mess with life" you said "it's not an easy thing to mess with the sanctity. of. life" which implies, that it's the "sanctity," not the life itself that is not an easy thing to mess with. and sanctity is just religious importance or holiness.

You don't get it, do you? As I've said, you are claiming that I'm only pro-life because my religion demands it...and you'd be dead wrong. (1. My religion does not demand it - if anything, the issue wouldn't matter at all on account of the extensive afterlife.) (2. I have multiple reasons that I don't need some holy Book to give me.)

(04-01-2013 07:22 PM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:You can at least pretend to see my point here.

naw i keep it real. i don't bullshit around like you

Quote:Also, how do you know they aren't at least partially conscious prior to birth? After all, there are studies that suggest otherwise.

what studies

Quote:Furthermore, why should consciousness be the only deciding factor?

what other factors do you think should be included?

You're the only one bullshitting here, and the last two quotes prove my point.

I used a half-truth to try to get the actual truth out of you, and, as I expected, you're too stupid to realize the full cost of abortion.

In all of the third trimester of pre-birth (and a good-sized chunk of the second), the unborn child is indeed conscious. What, you didn't think their senses became active right at birth, did you? Unless you do it particularly early (which is more difficult surgically), by performing an abortion you're killing a sentient being.

[Potato]

Quote:...The potential human will not know what it is like to exist! That is far worse than temporary discomfort.

there is an infinite amount of possible people who will never know what it's like to exist. i don't think that which does not exist can outweigh that which does.

Quote:You don't get it, do you?

no i get it, you're just too stupid to get what i'm getting

Quote:As I've said, you are claiming that I'm only pro-life because my religion demands it...and you'd be dead wrong. (1. My religion does not demand it - if anything, the issue wouldn't matter at all on account of the extensive afterlife.) (2. I have multiple reasons that I don't need some holy Book to give me.)

i don't know what your reasons are better than yourself, but you're contradicting your own statement "it's not an easy thing to mess with the SANCTITY. of. life." you're just arguing against yourself, but i like what you're saying so, good job

Quote:You're the only one bullshitting here, and the last two quotes prove my point.

I used a half-truth to try to get the actual truth out of you, and, as I expected, you're too stupid to realize the full cost of abortion.

lol srry i'm not going to fall for your pathetic little tricks. and i'm not bullshitting, all I've been doing is making the honest point that less suffering would exist in a world where abortion is legal.

Quote:In all of the third trimester of pre-birth (and a good-sized chunk of the second), the unborn child is indeed conscious.

oh you put "indeed" before "conscious" so it must be true. i'm going to ask again for a link to the research you were talking about

Quote:What, you didn't think their senses became active right at birth, did you?

no, that would make me look as stupid as you

[Ky]

(04-02-2013 10:24 AM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:...The potential human will not know what it is like to exist! That is far worse than temporary discomfort.

there is an infinite amount of possible people who will never know what it's like to exist. i don't think that which does not exist can outweigh that which does.

I neglected to point out that these are conscious beings that will not know what it is like to exist.

(04-02-2013 10:24 AM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:As I've said, you are claiming that I'm only pro-life because my religion demands it...and you'd be dead wrong. (1. My religion does not demand it - if anything, the issue wouldn't matter at all on account of the extensive afterlife.) (2. I have multiple reasons that I don't need some holy Book to give me.)

i don't know what your reasons are better than yourself, but you're contradicting your own statement "it's not an easy thing to mess with the SANCTITY. of. life." you're just arguing against yourself, but i like what you're saying so, good job

For the last time, it's an expression. I said it isn't easy to mess with the sanctity of life, meaning that some doctors not only have to perform very difficult operations in order to successfully abort a fetus, but some face moral dilemmas as well. There's hardly anything simple about performing an abortion, but I'll try to make it sound as simple as I can so I can get it through your head. If you take issue with a religious-sounding word, I have to go all the way back and explain why I've used it. I'll try to avoid them next time.

(04-02-2013 10:24 AM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:You're the only one bullshitting here, and the last two quotes prove my point.

I used a half-truth to try to get the actual truth out of you, and, as I expected, you're too stupid to realize the full cost of abortion.

lol srry i'm not going to fall for your pathetic little tricks. and i'm not bullshitting, all I've been doing is making the honest point that less suffering would exist in a world where abortion is legal.

It obviously was a pathetic trick considering it flew over the top of your head.

Yes, it is an honest point that less suffering would exist in a world where abortion is legal, but it isn't a complete point. Just because an aborted fetus would never suffer the negative points of life does not mean the suffering is avoided - oftentimes, the potential mother gets it instead. Ever heard of post-abortion trauma? It's really very common.

Also, the aborted child will not get to live the positive aspects of life, which, from where I'm standing, are the things that make life worth living. They won't even get to make the choice whether to go through it or not - their potential mother has to make this choice for them, which isn't really very fair.

(04-02-2013 10:24 AM)Potato Wrote:  

Quote:In all of the third trimester of pre-birth (and a good-sized chunk of the second), the unborn child is indeed conscious.

oh you put "indeed" before "conscious" so it must be true. i'm going to ask again for a link to the research you were talking about

Still need proof of common knowledge, eh?
Fine, I'll humor you.

Here, here's one! (Check the first paragraph to The Road to Awareness.)
Take one more! And this one (you can skip through the religious stuff)!
Who needs to be picky when it comes to sources? There are so many that it's practically common knowledge.

Like I said, I was baiting you for the truth, but, as it turns out, you knew nothing.

[Potato]

Quote:I neglected to point out that these are conscious beings that will not know what it is like to exist.

that another point, if it's conscious then it already exists. the point i'm making is that potential conscious existence is morally unimportant compared to conscious people that actually exist. so >>>IF<<< the fetus was incapable of any conscious experience inside the womb, then the mother should take moral precedence in deciding whether to abort or keep it. if you disagree, then disagree, stop trying to change the subject

Quote:For the last time, it's an expression.

lol yeah it expresses religious importance.

Quote: I said it isn't easy to mess with the sanctity of life, meaning that some doctors not only have to perform very difficult operations in order to successfully abort a fetus, but some face moral dilemmas as well.

then you should have said that it isn't easy to perform abortions. if you DON'T think that it isn't easy to mess with any sanctifies then don't say it. srry but it looks like you're just trying to go back and change what you said and you're not going to convince me.

Quote:It obviously was a pathetic trick considering it flew over the top of your head.

lol i still don't know what you're talking about. and i don't think you have the ability to distinguishing between a "half-truth" and an "actual truth." and of all the half-truths you've been putting out, i have no idea which one was intended to "get the actual truth out of me"

Quote:Just because an aborted fetus would never suffer the negative points of life does not mean the suffering is avoided - oftentimes, the potential mother gets it instead. Ever heard of post-abortion trauma? It's really very common.

you think they'd be happier if they were forced to go through with childbirth?

Quote:Here, here's one! (Check the first paragraph to The Road to Awareness.)

read the entire article you lazy fool. the "first paragraph to The Road to Awareness" said "many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester." the rest of the article went on to explain why those circuit elements cannot function prior to birth. the author wrote on the second page "I wager that the fetus experiences nothing in utero; that it feels the way we do when we are in a deep, dreamless sleep."

Quote:Take one more! And this one (you can skip through the religious stuff)!

thanks for the warning. i'm just going to skip those

Quote:Who needs to be picky when it comes to sources?

lol i do..so "Newborn babies have been trying for centuries to convince us they are, like the rest of us, sensing, feeling, thinking human beings." LOL 1. no they haven't. 2. we aren't talking about new born babies. "infants blah blah blah..infant cries..." completely irrelevant. next source..

Quote:There are so many that it's practically common knowledge.

oh a wikipedia list...ctrl-f "conscious"..."0 of 0". well another irreverent link. nice trolling. i totally fell for it.

[thewake]

Well, fetuses do masturbate in utero so I figure if you can fap you're human.

[Ky]

If none of you guys are going to take this seriously, I'm out.

[Potato]

you're just too stupid to admit you're wrong

[Desu]

This thread has reached critical mass.

ABORT ABORT

[thewake]

(04-04-2013 10:51 AM)DoA Wrote:  If none of you guys are going to take this seriously, I'm out.

I was being serious. They can fap, that ought to count for something and it ought to mean something. It means they can feel.

[Ky]

Soul, fix your forums. This is about the fifth time I've tried to post this message.

(04-04-2013 11:32 AM)Potato Wrote:  you're just too stupid to admit you're wrong

You're calling me stupid?

Upon begging for evidence of common knowledge, I provided a small portion of all the evidence I found. Half of it you didn't even read, and the other half you halfheartedly dismissed. You were no intellectual competition - you didn't buttress the weaknesses in your argument, your use of logical fallacies was staggering (and did you really need to hurt my feelings with the thick layers of ad hominem?), you were (as my evidence suggests) factually wrong, and to top it all off - well, your grammar was horrendous. Were you even trying to engage in a formal argument?

You used "irreverent" in place of irrelevant (you are an example of someone irreverent, while the words within these parentheses would be classified as irrelevant, in case you didn't know the difference), you brought playground insults to a serious discussion on abortion, and still you have the audacity to call me stupid?

You're a waste of my time. Convincing you of your foolishness is about as effective as offering the Hulk anger management - that's how intrinsically inept you are at debate. I don't have to deal with this shit.

[brainiac3397]

Hidden stuff:

[Potato]

srry if i hurt your feelings, i didn't know your were so sensitive. but for the record, what you call a "think layer of ad hominem," was not intended as pro-choice arguments; i did not imply that the source of the argument falsified the argument itself; i was simply calling you a brainwashed religious sheep who can't understand what makes something a logical fallacy to safe your life, no offense

and most of the evidence you linked to had nothing to do with what you were trying to prove; and the most reliable of the those links, the scientific american article, was a clear contradiction to what you claimed; it showed that you didn't even bother reading the full articles yourself before posting them here.

and i'm srry that you find my grammar "horrendous." i hope the nightmares won't make you cry too much. and about the spelling mistake to which you devoted a paragraph, i spelled the word correctly in one sentence and messed up in the next. i think it's really pathetic how you jumped on it like you did.

and yes, i was trying to "engage in a formal argument," because i expected that it shouldn't take too much iq for someone to be able to comprehend the simple idea which i've stated many times that a potential human will not suffer from not existing, whereas a grow human would suffer from a forced childbirth. but you're still obviously confused and butthurt and and tbh idk what to do about it

[Potato]

(04-05-2013 08:12 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  

Hidden stuff:

don't tell me how to live my life

[Desu]

(04-05-2013 02:15 PM)Potato Wrote:  comprehend the simple idea which i've stated many times that a potential human will not suffer from not existing, whereas a grow human would suffer from a forced childbirth. but you're still obviously confused and butthurt and and tbh idk what to do about it

Minus the ad hominem, this is my critical point as well. I really do not see how you cannot comprehend that someone not existing will not suffer ever. A person forced into this world through childbirth now has to face death, pain, the struggle for survival, and the weight of existential questions.

I honestly believe your inability to see this comes from a lack of empathy and a denial for what actually happens, not some potential or ideal conception of life.

Real humans suffer, potential humans don't.

And let me reiterate, there are 7 billion humans crowding the ecology of this planet, I've always heard that ecologists generally agree we're overpopulated due to use of fossil fuels propping us up. No more births please.

[brainiac3397]

(04-05-2013 02:34 PM)Potato Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 08:12 AM)brainiac3397 Wrote:  

Hidden stuff:

don't tell me how to live my life

Seeing that it's a general statement and not a command, I didn't tell you in the first place

Unless you're making a statement as well. Then OK.

[Potato]

Quote:Seeing that it's a general statement and not a command, I didn't tell you in the first place

it's an imperative sentence and imperative sentences express command

Quote:And let me reiterate, there are 7 billion humans crowding the ecology of this planet, I've always heard that ecologists generally agree we're overpopulated due to use of fossil fuels propping us up. No more births please.

like voluntary abortions are going to have a considerable influence on the global population.

[thewake]

(04-05-2013 03:31 PM)Desu Wrote:  And let me reiterate, there are 7 billion humans crowding the ecology of this planet, I've always heard that ecologists generally agree we're overpopulated due to use of fossil fuels propping us up. No more births please.

Watch on YouTube

See: http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/22/peak-farmland
Also this: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/05/02/b...d-liberty/