 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sixchan
I'm going to say what NA wanted the pro-choicers to say.
We are killing something that is human, and quite possibly sentient, depending on how far into pregnancy you want to draw the line, and I am perfectly OK with that because I believe it is the mother's right to choose whether she wants to have (as in give birth) the baby in question.
And I really do believe it. Happy, NA? |
Wow. that's profound.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
...and the life of the mother who bears and rears that child. That is her decision, and it is no one else's right but her own whether she wants that foetus inside her, and is thus her right to abort that foetus, which is in real terms acting in a parasitic capacity... |
One could apply that argument to infancy and childhood. Perhaps we should supplant the old Paternal right of Life and Death over the family that existed centuries ago with the Maternal right of Life and Death. Now that would be progress.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Oh it's the old "parasite" argument again eh? And I thought we were becoming more civilized...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richelieu
Akka: We will not agree on any definition because any definition that you will have will be the one that justifies abortion in your mind.
And guess what mine will be. |
Of course 
As I'm an Evil Bad Horrible Pro-choice, I'm de facto unsincere and twisted, so I de facto only define a human person in a way that allows the abortion.
Of course, a pro-life, on the other side, is member of the Good Gentle Trustful party and only define human in pure sincerity, and it's a pure coincidence that this definition (which he is unable to tell BTW) prevent abortion.
Did I hear the word "hypocrisis" ?
Well, Richelieu, if you want to be taken seriously, you should back up why abortion is evil with better arguments than that.
I defined what is a person and gave reason why I consider the embryo not being a person.
You neither defined what is a person, neither disprove my reasonning.
Guess who's the best chances to be right ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Of course
As I'm an Evil Bad Horrible Pro-choice, I'm de facto unsincere and twisted, so I de facto only define a human person in a way that allows the abortion.
Of course, a pro-life, on the other side, is member of the Good Gentle Trustful party and only define human in pure sincerity, and it's a pure coincidence that this definition (which he is unable to tell BTW) prevent abortion.
Did I hear the word "hypocrisis" ?
Well, Richelieu, if you want to be taken seriously, you should back up why abortion is evil with better arguments than that.
I defined what is a person and gave reason why I consider the embryo not being a person.
You neither defined what is a person, neither disprove my reasonning.
Guess who's the best chances to be right ? |
Where did you get the idea that i think Pro-Choice are evil? Where did you get the idea that i think evil exists?
As a matter of fact i posted that i don't believe in God. Nor in Evil.
If you want to be taken serously find and post one of my posts where i say that Pro-Choice are Evil.
And to answer the first part of your post, i don't think you define a human person in a way that allows the abortion because you are evil or unsincere or twisted. I think you choose a definition that justifies your beliefs.
I happen to disagree with your beliefs.
So please give that religious crap to someone who deserves it. There are some around here i believe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sixchan
I'm going to say what NA wanted the pro-choicers to say.
We are killing something that is human, and quite possibly sentient, depending on how far into pregnancy you want to draw the line, and I am perfectly OK with that because I believe it is the mother's right to choose whether she wants to have (as in give birth) the baby in question.
And I really do believe it. Happy, NA? |
Yep.
You're not pretending it's something that it's not. Your beliefs vs my beliefs. No refs. No winner.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richelieu
|
|
Gatineau
Dec 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Choosing a definition for "human person" with the intention to justify a belief IS unsincere and twisted. It would be like defining murder as "killing someone except if it's convenient for me". If I was defining a human person just to justify abortion, I would be in fact evil and twisted.
Though, I gave reasons to explain why I support my definition of "human person". You still have not disproved them, and you still have not explained what you consider a human person. Rather, you attack my definition by suggesting I conveniently chose it to justify my opinions.
Again : give your own definition of what is a human person, and disprove my own reasonings. |
Why ?
The reasons you give to explain your choices are all derived from/ influenced by your beliefs, which are neither twisted nor insincere. They can't be proven or disproven - they're just not the same as mine.
You seem to think that there can only be right and wrong, winner or loser, no middle ground, no grey zones, no differences in opinions.
You seem to think that YOU are right and that I am wrong. You hold the truth and i don't.
There just is no such thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Richelieu
Why ?
The reasons you give to explain your choices are all derived from/ influenced by your beliefs, which are neither twisted nor insincere. They can't be proven or disproven - they're just not the same as mine.
You seem to think that there can only be right and wrong, winner or loser, no middle ground, no grey zones, no differences in opinions.
You seem to think that YOU are right and that I am wrong. You hold the truth and i don't.
There just is no such thing. |
Logic is not derived from beliefs. It's a simple mechanism of the act of thinking. It's like the cinetic energy in physics. Logic is only about causes and results, action and reaction. Any reasonning can be proven/disproven, as reasoning are based on logic.
There is grey areas in the world. There is things where we, humans, just can't know the answers (the existence of God is a good example).
But the definition of a human being is not part of these unanswerable questions. If you're unable to define a person, how are you about to define murder ? Abuse ? Theft ? ANY crime ?
I don't HOLD the truth. I give a reasonning to support my views. Until it's disproven, I'll consider it right. Seem logical to me.
I don't like the "we agree to disagree" method for things like abortion, because the result of the confrontation of ideas on this point can change how it's dealt by society. I will fight for the right to abort and I don't want to get back to a backward society where the rights of a thing are put above the rights of a human being. I will fight to keep abortion being considered a standard, classical, surgical operation.
And finally, if you are unable to give any argument to WHY you consider abortion wrong... Well, I just wonder why you believe it's wrong in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
November Adam
|
 |
Calgary, AB, Canada
Jul 2001
time: 22:20
|
|
Akka, personhood shouldn't be the basis for decideing on the morality of abortion. As the definition of personhood is too ambiguous, you define it as someone with a mind. For you it is okay to terminate the life of someone as long as they are not possessing a mind. For me it is not, as the one to be terminated has the very real potential of possessing one. Not some fantasy la, la thing about all human cells having the potential of possessing a mind. It time isn't an important factor as some are trying to imply, than why is it necesarry to terminate this life within 9 months?
Akka you didn't address the other points I brought up. You only said you were offended when I asked you what a "person" is.
Uhm Richeliue what do you mean "step back"?
I was trying to draw a comparrison between someone who had lost sentience, and would recover it to an embryo which would devlope it.
Of course if people knew that someone who was brain dead (lost sentience), but would recover it, they would want to keep the people on life support until they recovered. Even if they only had the "potential" to recover it. How is this different than an embryo, or fetus?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
I have a question for the pro-lifers in here.
Do you consider a fetus to be a person in the same way you consider yourself to be a person? Isn't there a difference between being homo sapien and being human?
I for one believe that humans are more than just animals, defined by more than their genetic code.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sixchan
|
 |
Sole member of the Apolyton 'let's all get along' club
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
A not so long time ago, slavery was not considered bad. If it was not for some people that tried to open the mind and share their ideas to other, we could still live in a world were slavery would be acceptable. |
But didn't this, at least in America, eventually involve brute force in the form of a war? The south was forced to abolish slavery, because they thought slavery was moral, and couldn't be convinced otherwise.
And blackice has a point, although, even I'm not likely to get pregnant. At, least, I don't think I can...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
I for the most part tend to agree with you. The only thing is that can you consider taking something from somebody that never had it to be immoral? Can you really be blamed for destroying something that doesn't exist?
You used the analogy of someone that got very sick lost his mind (or as I would say, his humanity) but is going to recover. I would say the difference is that the person lost something and is going to regain it, while the baby never had it in the first place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackice
I fail to see why men debate this issue when ultimately you have no say what so ever... |
Because men make the laws.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
|
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by November Adam
Akka, personhood shouldn't be the basis for decideing on the morality of abortion. As the definition of personhood is too ambiguous, you define it as someone with a mind. For you it is okay to terminate the life of someone as long as they are not possessing a mind. For me it is not, as the one to be terminated has the very real potential of possessing one. Not some fantasy la, la thing about all human cells having the potential of possessing a mind. It time isn't an important factor as some are trying to imply, than why is it necesarry to terminate this life within 9 months? |
So you consider that something which have the potential to become a human being, as to have to same rights (or close to the same rights) as a full human being.
I completely disagree with this potential idea. Perhaps that the embryo has the potential to get a mind later. Still it does not exist yet. I can't hurt it, I can't steal from it, I can't kill it, because it just does not exist.
Why something that does not exist should have any right ?
quote:
Akka you didn't address the other points I brought up. You only said you were offended when I asked you what a "person" is. |
Of course. I was not about to repeat myself when you just had to finish to read my previous post to find your answer.
If you really want your answer then here they are :
1) "abortion is killing a human in its embryotic stage"
It's not a human yet, as it has no mind.
2) "You are arguing that it is okay to kill a human as long as it is not a "person"."
I'm not saying killing is okay as long as it is not a person. I say that it's not a killing as long as it's not a person. Do you consider cutting your finger being a killing ?
quote:
I was trying to draw a comparrison between someone who had lost sentience, and would recover it to an embryo which would devlope it. |
Someone never lose sentience. You can be asleep or in the coma, but if you ever awake, you will retain your memories and your personnality, at least to some extend. You can loose consciousness, not sentience.
quote:
Of course if people knew that someone who was brain dead (lost sentience), but would recover it, they would want to keep the people on life support until they recovered. Even if they only had the "potential" to recover it. How is this different than an embryo, or fetus? |
Someone who is braindead is considered dead. The ones that stay plugged on the life support are the one who are in deep coma, but whose brain is still alive. Hence, his mind is still alive, though unconscious.
The difference is then that an embryo has not yet a mind, and then there is nothing bad about destroying the embryo.
The people in coma has still his mind, he is just unconscious.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2002 03:59
|