black_kat_meow
hihiwhywhy
You beat me to it, lol. God people, sometimes I think the ability to READ should be valued well and above good intentions!Kwayera said:
The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Generator
- Start date
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
WHO CARES! This is not a problem in this debate. These are accidents by their very definition. Go home.Kwayera said:
Black kat meow: fuck off. you're not contributing anything to the discussion.
black_kat_meow
hihiwhywhy
Well, generally it goes:Nebuchanezzar said:
-Logical reasoning for abortions
-Emotionally charged (often religious) response
-Again, logical reasoning
-Emotionally charged poster ignores significant flaws
-Logical poster points out
-Again ignored, rants "omg, ur killn da babiez! y u fink has da rite?!!"
Yeah, so basically I'm just having fun riding the merry-go-round.
Plus I contributed yesterday, but yeah, see above.
Captain Hero
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 659
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
Your inability to argue from any point other than emotion is a disservice, comradeNebuchanezzar said:
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Ok cool. except i've dedicated a sizable amount of time on this website into a logical (if disagreeable) POV on abortion. 
My problem with abortion is that it is the willful, conscious ending of a human life. Kwayera did not illustrate a situation where this is a problem. The automatic, unconscious "biological" abortion of fertilised eggs is something that does not fit into my objection, and hence it's not a problem.
kthxbai?
My problem with abortion is that it is the willful, conscious ending of a human life. Kwayera did not illustrate a situation where this is a problem. The automatic, unconscious "biological" abortion of fertilised eggs is something that does not fit into my objection, and hence it's not a problem.
kthxbai?
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
By your definition it is "preventing life" and is thus manslaughter.Nebuchanezzar said:
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
No, not really. Explain how that's manslaughter? It wasn't negligent, or conscious or anything. It was an unpreventable, unconscious accident. A misfortune that could not have been avoided in any way shape or form.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
And people have gone to jail for less.Nebuchanezzar said:
The point is that if you must ascribe the label "murder" to abortion, then all other legal definitions must follow including this, which is obviously absurd for the reasons you have stated.
E
Empyrean444
Guest
My mistake. Anyway, if fertilised eggs are aborted naturally, it means that they are ill formed and probably not going to survive as a result (for example, scientists preventing this natural abortion and the babies being born all malformed with a tiny life expectancy). This is actually irrelevant to my argument - because if it is aborted it is because it is not going to survive anyway, which is not the case for which i argue against abortion, where the foetus would most likely survive. (i said i agree with an an abortion if we can be absolutely sure that the baby/foetus will die anyway).Kwayera said:
The intention issue Nebachessar (or whatever) said is also important here i feel.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Oh come now. You know that's not a form of logical reasoning.
I've been pretty careful to avoid using the word 'murder', and have instead used the word 'killing' in most of my serious posts. Because I've had this very idea in mind.
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
What about women who, through things like drug use or dangerous behaviour, miscarry? Is that also murder, even if they didn't know they were pregnant, in which case they'd be guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide?
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
no.
E
Empyrean444
Guest
I would define this as manslaughter - mind you she will (soon or eventually) find out if she is pregnant. If after this time she continued to do her drugs (or whatever) then i would see this as murder too, yes.Kwayera said:
Edit: possibly not actually in hindsight. The exact circumstances would be the determinant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Why? The foetus was still killed, through negligent behaviour. If you're arguing that a foetus is entitled to all the rights of being a fully-fledged human being, then you can't really pick and choose which legal definitions apply, can you?Nebuchanezzar said:
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
Even if those drugs are alcohol and/or caffeine, neither of which are themselves illegal? And what if the woman is ignorant of the effect of these drugs on a foetus? Is that still manslaughter?Empyrean444 said:
E
Empyrean444
Guest
This is a moral dilemma - i think the exact, individual circumstances would have to decide it.Kwayera said:
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
How? Either negligently killing a foetus is killing a foetus and is prosecuted as such (as for babies, children and adults) or it isn't.
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Yeah no I don't see how.
According to you, it's a living entity with rights equal to its mothers. So by your logic, if a mother overdosed a living child on alcohol, it's okay coz it's up to the individual circumstances?
You either apply your shit logic to every situation, or you get a grip and realise it's absurd.
According to you, it's a living entity with rights equal to its mothers. So by your logic, if a mother overdosed a living child on alcohol, it's okay coz it's up to the individual circumstances?
You either apply your shit logic to every situation, or you get a grip and realise it's absurd.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
you can hardly be responsible for something you're unaware of.Kwayera said:
katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Yes you canNebuchanezzar said:
If you run over a pedestrian you're unaware of, you're still responsible for their death