Abortion debate (1 Viewer)

[veridis]

Human is being that has the genetic properties of a human, alive is growth, development, the cycle of resources (ie. oxygen, iron). I would love to read your "reasonable scientific definition" - do you think newborn babies have any self-realization or thought as you definite it? Nope, a newborn doesent even know that its arms exist at first, yet somehow to you killing a newborn is murder and yet killing something simular prior is an acceptable medical procedure, you are a sick fuck.

i donate blood and it sits in a bag. is that human? i has DNA it has growth, the cycle of resources.
even further i decide to grow and organ in a lab(as has been done many times), again DNA, growth, development

also i think you'll find newborns have quite sophisticated minds. even when left alone they show a sense of self awareness far above anything in the animal kingdom. you seem to confuse knowledge and language with self awareness.

 

[bshoc]

The reason for debate, which you'd have known if you'd bothered to click back, was that some of us decide to define life as being the point at which the growth achieves consciousness, while others simply define it as a living organism (in the same way that a plant is alive, without consciousness). This has already been discussed, and you'd be aware of this if you had bothered to familiarise yourself with the topic which you intend to argue.

Newborn children dont achieve self-awareness usually up until a year or so, your call.

This line of logic has been pursued to death previously. How many different ways can I say it? I'm not about to enter into an all new argument with an all new piece of shit like yourself, making exactly the same case, just because you can't be fucked reading what I've already said. If you can't be bothered reading, the argument is pointless anyway, which is exactly why I intend to do anything but take you seriously. I've done it all before, and it's there for you to see if you bother. No new (serious) material for you today, because I'm tired of repeating myself patiently in response to a never-ending stream of idiots. It's like headbutting a wall, only slightly less gratifying.

I've read what you have said, I posed and exposed the logic in your supposed argument and now you're ranting about shit all with no plausable way to answer back.

Everything I'm posting IS crap, as I've indicated.

Good to know I'm dealing with an idiot here.

This is by no means a "tough one", and I'll spell it out again for you, very clearly, so that there can be no mistake. I think you're a fuckhead,d I don't intend to argue with you because you've demonstrated what I find is an uniformed and chauvinistic perspective

That and you have failed to answer this:

If a fetus is not alive, then it must be dead, but if it is dead, it would not grow, move about, or need the sustinance of life.

Thus proving that every line you spend writing that does not adress this point is worthless.

and I prefer to reserve my intelligent discussion for individuals who display some semblance of a clue.

LOL

"intelligent conversation" in your sense when every third line in your response is "your a fuckwit" or is it one where everyone agrees with you to not offend your fundametaly flawed opinion?

Yes, you really have put me in quite the e-predicament. Here I am, refusing to argue with a moron such as yourself,

Actually you're the moron here since namecalling is the only thing you're doing.

Thanks for the permission tiger. It's nice to know that you'll not attempt to interfere with my decision to derride you and your bullshit, at least. It's a shame the same courtesy could not be afforded to pregnant women.

Pregnant women can do what they like with their bodies, a baby is not part of a womans body , it doesent even have the same genetic properties as the mother, it is not an organ, it is a seperate being.

Edit: lol, you fixed some typos, but you can't get them all. My advice? Stop typing with your forehead you fucking cretin.[/quote]

 

[veridis]

Newborn children dont achieve self-awareness usually up until a year or so, your call.

wrong. read up on some proper developmental psych and neuro first please. unless of course all science is heretical to your obviously fundamentalist views

Pregnant women can do what they like with their bodies, a baby is not part of a womans body , it doesent even have the same genetic properties as the other, it is not an organ, it is a seperate being.

a cancer is just as much a seperate being, a cancer also has different DNA to the host. should we call for and immediate halt to all "murder" of cancers?

 

[Serius]

I am pretty sure this thread should be dead. Didnt someone make a hitler reference?

read up on internet laws, the thread is over. no more posting

 

[bshoc]

i donate blood and it sits in a bag. is that human? i has DNA it has growth, the cycle of resources.

Blood doesent "grow" .. its preserved at best, and slowly but surely, even in the freezer it dies away, it does not replicate itself ouside the body.

even further i decide to grow and organ in a lab(as has been done many times), again DNA, growth, development

You cant "grow" organs in a lab, if you could there would be no organ donors you fucking moron, the best one can do with the latest scientific capacity is synthesise skin.

also i think you'll find newborns have quite sophisticated minds. even when left alone they show a sense of self awareness far above anything in the animal kingdom. you seem to confuse knowledge and language with self awareness.

No a child is not aware of itself for its first year almost entirely, read any psych publication you want.

 

[withoutaface]

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/dc/A_VERY_SPLENDID_PICTURE.jpg

 

[wheredanton]

bshoc

I bet you have interesting relationships with women. I mean proper close intimate relationships. Your attitude towards women isn't exactly enlightened, its very 18th century. But I'm sure you are aware and proud of that.

I hope one day you do have an learn to respect women as well as your self. Currently you certainly lack the grace of god.

 

[wheredanton]

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/d/dc/A_VERY_SPLENDID_PICTURE.jpg

given the context of this thread, for some reason I just couldnt stop laughing when I saw that.

 

[veridis]

Blood doesent "grow" .. its preserved at best, and slowly but surely, even in the freezer it dies away, it does not replicate itself ouside the body.

white blood cells can continue to split for a short while after leaving the body. yes they die eventualy but dont people also die eventualy? surely something has to die to be human. immortality would make us gods

You cant "grow" organs in a lab, if you could there would be no organ donors you fucking moron, the best one can do with the latest scientific capacity is synthesise skin.

woops seems like someones wrong. and the reason we have donors is because its still prohibatively expensive and not many organs are grown successfully to full size.

No a child is not aware of itself for its first year almost entirely, read any psych publication you want.

i have read many of them. unfortunately they dont say that.

 

[bshoc]

wrong. read up on some proper developmental psych and neuro first please. unless of course all science is heretical to your obviously fundamentalist views

It is your views, not mine, that violate scientific principle.

a cancer is just as much a seperate being, a cancer also has different DNA to the host. should we call for and immediate halt to all "murder" of cancers?

A cancer is part of the same being, its nothing more than damaged DNA.

 

[ogmzergrush]

Newborn children dont achieve self-awareness usually up until a year or so, your call.

Sources quoted earlier say different, where are yours, and how do they disprove the prior sources? Furthermore, what's your personal objection to the sources which have been used to disprove what you've just asserted? Seeing as you've just read back and brushed up on what we've discussed previously, you should have no trouble in dealing with any of these questions.

I've read what you have said, I posed and exposed the logic in your supposed argument and now you're ranting about shit all with no plausable way to answer back.

You posed my logic? That's novel.

Good to know I'm dealing with an idiot here.

Yes, that must give you at least a glimmer of hope

If a fetus is not alive, then it must be dead, but if it is dead, it would not grow, move about, or need the sustinance of life.

By my definition of alive, a foetus, up to a point, is alive yet not conscious, and as such cannot be "killed" in the same way that murder kills someone. I see abortions up to this point as being acceptable, as the act is no different to stomping on a plant. After this point however, I do see a problem, and I think you'll find that most the pro-choice people posting here share this view. If you have actually managed to read back and somehow miss this discussion, then I think you should probably try some lighter reading to start things off. Goosebumps perhaps? I'm pretty sure what I just said has been said by myself and others multiple times previously in this thread, so I fail to see how this is treading new ground at all, aside from the fact that you are, as far as I remember, the first person to jump upon the distinction like you've just discovered some amazing logical flaw which destroys the alternative viewpoint.

"intelligent conversation" in your sense when every third line in your response is "your a fuckwit" or is it one where everyone agrees with you to not offend your fundametaly flawed opinion?

Seeing as I said I wasn't going to engage in intelligent conversation with you, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that calling you a fuckhead falls outside said intelligent conversation. Errors in bold, and the entire thing in red because it's got a question mark, but doesn't read like a question. Assuming you're trying to ask what my idea of an intelligent conversation is, it's one where the person I'm talking with can read, spell, speak English, and put forward an informed view with supporting material. In short, it does not involve people like you.

Actually you're the moron here since namecalling is the only thing you're doing.

If you say so champ.

Pregnant women can do what they like with their bodies, a baby is not part of a womans body , it doesent even have the same genetic properties as the mother, it is not an organ, it is a seperate being.

The distinction is, in my mind, trivial, as I've explained before. Unless you can somehow convince me that a foetus, prior to achieving consciousness (by my definition, not your whack-ass one year old shit) is a living lifeform with rights to consider ahead of those of its actual, inarguable mother, you're wasting your time. Actually, to make it even easier for you to understand, you are wasting your time. Your manner of expression does little to convince me, in addition to your lack of supporting material, and as such I'm left wondering whether this is some sort of elongated joke, rather than an attempt at serious debate. I don't see this as changing any time in the future, so I'd suggest a change of approach. Failing that, perhaps you should try to find someone else to "argue" with, someone who doesn't laugh at just about everything you say.

 

[bshoc]

bshoc

I bet you have interesting relationships with women. I mean proper close intimate relationships. Your attitude towards women isn't exactly enlightened, its very 18th century. But I'm sure you are aware and proud of that.

I hope one day you do have an learn to respect women as well as your self. Currently you certainly lack the grace of god.

Exactly what part of infantacide do my relationships with women correlate with?

Just so you know not every women supports her own right to murder her own premature child.

 

[veridis]

A cancer is part of the same being, its nothing more than damaged DNA.

and two genomes being ripped apart and smushed together is not damage? sure it might be intentional damage in a systematic process that has evolved over milennia but sure enough it is damage. are you taking the place of god and saying what is and isnt acceptable damage?

my views dont contradict science they just keep up with it
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19025464.200.html
a link for growing organs. if you were worth it i'd back up all my other stuff too

 

[!Solskjaer!]

Please tell me that you think that a man "walking out" is equiviant to a woman murdering her own baby, I didnt know creaters as retarded as you existed.

You've totally lost all sense of direction in terms of the argument here, haven't you? The hole you've dug is far too deep to get yourself out of now. Your best bet is just stopping before you embarrass yourself even further.

Though, I'm starting to understand what you're saying.

The mother decides she doesn't want the baby, for whatever reason (result of rape, can't sustain it financially, for the sake of her own health, not ready etc.). The pregnancy is terminated. The mother is a murderer because she didn't want the baby.

As the mother and father both have equal roles in creating the baby, the father is, by your own definition/logic, a murderer if he doesn't wan't the baby. Right?

 

[bshoc]

Sources quoted earlier say different, where are yours, and how do they disprove the prior sources? Furthermore, what's your personal objection to the sources which have been used to disprove what you've just asserted? Seeing as you've just read back and brushed up on what we've discussed previously, you should have no trouble in dealing with any of these questions.

Does it matter? seeing as how you think anything inside the mother is human and total property of the mother, while the second it pops out its suddenly a person?

You posed my logic? That's novel.

Alright, I only EXposed your flawed logic.

Yes, that must give you at least a glimmer of hope

No just the satisfaction of knowing that you are aware of what an idiot you are.

By my definition of alive, a foetus, up to a point, is alive yet not conscious, and as such cannot be "killed" in the same way that murder kills someone. I see abortions up to this point as being acceptable, as the act is no different to stomping on a plant.

So your entire premise is based around whether the baby has developed you standard of so called "higher mental function", correct? Simular cranial inactivity and loss of self awareness occurs in coma patients, yet we dont kill them off becuase some wake up, and nearly all babies develop higher mental funtion - you still have NO LOGIC.

Seeing as I said I wasn't going to engage in intelligent conversation with you, I think it's a fairly safe assumption that calling you a fuckhead falls outside said intelligent conversation. Errors in bold, and the entire thing in red because it's got a question mark, but doesn't read like a question. Assuming you're trying to ask what my idea of an intelligent conversation is, it's one where the person I'm talking with can read, spell, speak English, and put forward an informed view with supporting material. In short, it does not involve people like you.

Spelling errors? Yep I'm done here, it was nice to prove you wrong in this field of intellectual discourse, not that I had any intellect to really battle LOL

If you say so champ.

good.

 

[veridis]

So your entire premise is based around whether the baby has developed you standard of so called "higher mental function", correct? Simular cranial inactivity and loss of self awareness occurs in coma patients, yet we dont kill them off becuase some wake up, and nearly all babies develop higher mental funtion - you still have NO LOGIC.

actualy thats why there is a term "braindead" and when patients reach that stage, ie showing no signs at all of higher functions not just lack of consciousness, it is legal for life support to be turned off.
of course this is still a frontier area of science and we're still finding out a lot(such as patients who wake up after 19 years) but the fact remains the scientific community have decided and had it passed as law in most countries that no higher brain functions = dead even though the body is alive. a foetus up to a certain point is also in this catagory. that ponit is not when the baby "pops out" as you put it but neither is it at conception. each country has ruled on where they consider that point to be and only before that point are abortions allowed.

 

[bshoc]

You've totally lost all sense of direction in terms of the argument here, haven't you? The hole you've dug is far too deep to get yourself out of now. Your best bet is just stopping before you embarrass yourself even further.

Oh yes I'm crumbling at your feet, tears gushing out of my eyes, losing all self-confidence, digging the trench too deep, your non-argument defeating my very being - you dumb fuck.

Incase you havent learned it at school, thats called sarcasm.

The mother decides she doesn't want the baby, for whatever reason (result of rape, can't sustain it financially, for the sake of her own health, not ready etc.). The pregnancy is terminated. The mother is a murderer because she didn't want the baby.

Moreso becuase she was stupid enough to have a baby when she didnt want one, the first one you mentioned (rape) is an exception becuase its not necessarily the mothers fault, the rest is squarely her responsibility.

As the mother and father both have equal roles in creating the baby,

No, moron - fathers dont carry the baby, nor do they have any legaly binding say in the the question of whether the child is to be aborted. It doesent matter what the father wants.

 

[bshoc]

actualy thats why there is a term "braindead" and when patients reach that stage, ie showing no signs at all of higher functions not just lack of consciousness, it is legal for life support to be turned off.
of course this is still a frontier area of science and we're still finding out a lot(such as patients who wake up after 19 years) but the fact remains the scientific community have decided and had it passed as law in most countries that no higher brain functions = dead even though the body is alive. a foetus up to a certain point is also in this catagory. that ponit is not when the baby "pops out" as you put it but neither is it at conception. each country has ruled on where they consider that point to be and only before that point are abortions allowed.

Funny those coma patients never get two birth/death certificates eh?

 

[veridis]

Funny those coma patients never get two birth/death certificates eh?

which patients? the ones who wake up after 19 years? thats cause they stayed on life support fuckwit. note i say braindead makes it legal to turn off life support, thus make them completely dead. a foetus is a similar situation. they are living to an extent but just like any other non-human it is not murder.

can you also please try to address my arguments and not just ignore the ones that dont suit(ie you getting completely shut down on growing organs, infant self awareness and my scientific views)

 

[ogmzergrush]

Does it matter? seeing as how you think anything inside the mother is human and total property of the mother, while the second it pops out its suddenly a person?

I think it matters, yes, seeing as you're using it to make a point and somehow refute what has already been said. I think "my sources don't matter" is probably about as good as saying "Ok, ok, everyone knows I'm talking out my arse, I give up".

Further to this, that's not actually what I've said previously at all, but you knew that seeing as you read back, or seeing as you read the last post, in which I stated my view again. If you want to walk away from this thinking you've won because you can't fucking read, good luck with it. The second it "pops out" is not where I, or anyone else as far as I can see, draws the distinction.

So your entire premise is based around whether the baby has developed you standard of so called "higher mental function", correct?

Not my entire view, no, but yes, this is definitely what I'd identify as a fairly major factor.

Simular cranial inactivity and loss of self awareness occurs in coma patients, yet we dont kill them off becuase some wake up, and nearly all babies develop higher mental funtion - you still have NO LOGIC.

I don't think I'm the one missing logic here if you seriously think it's valid to compare coma victims (who were once previously conscious, and who have already spent a portion of time living their life), with an unborn baby which never so much as knew that it existed, and which does not yet have functional pain receptors.

Spelling errors? Yep I'm done here, it was nice to prove you wrong in this field of intellectual discourse, not that I had any intellect to really battle LOL

You truly are a king among kings, good sir. My point was simply that you're kidding yourself if you think you've made a point, given that you can't so much as string together a respectable sentence. If that's how you win arguments, congratulations, you'll go far.

Also, yes, hopefully you are done here. I will provide you with a five point plan for ensuring that this scene is not repeated in the future:

1. Learn to read. This will save others from repeating themselves needlessly, and from becoming frustrated with your lack of comprehension.
2. Learn to spell/type. This will lend credibility to what you are saying, in addition to making it much easier for others to understand.
3. Learn to make your points clearly. Sentences which look like the product of a damaged mind will not help your case.
4. If you intend to argue, learn to read, understand, and then discuss (with reference) that which you intend to attack.
5. Learn to provide material which supports your aforementioned criticisms, you will convince nobody with lines like "oh read all the psych journals, they'll tell you exactly the same thing!"

Do this, and perhaps next time I'll be interested in serious discussion with you.