The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[black_kat_meow]

Read what I said again. Fertilised eggs. Fertilised eggs. Eggs that have been fertilised. Sperm and egg joined together.

Human women routinely and spontaneously abort fertilised eggs.

You beat me to it, lol. God people, sometimes I think the ability to READ should be valued well and above good intentions!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Read what I said again. Fertilised eggs. Fertilised eggs. Eggs that have been fertilised. Sperm and egg joined together.

Human women routinely and spontaneously abort fertilised eggs.

WHO CARES! This is not a problem in this debate. These are accidents by their very definition. Go home.

Black kat meow: fuck off. you're not contributing anything to the discussion.

 

[black_kat_meow]

WHO CARES! This is not a problem in this debate. These are accidents by their very definition. Go home.

Black kat meow: fuck off. you're not contributing anything to the discussion.

Well, generally it goes:
-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]

WHO CARES! This is not a problem in this debate. These are accidents by their very definition. Go home.

Black kat meow: fuck off. you're not contributing anything to the discussion.

Your inability to argue from any point other than emotion is a disservice, comrade

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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?

 

[Kwayera]

WHO CARES! This is not a problem in this debate. These are accidents by their very definition. Go home.

By your definition it is "preventing life" and is thus manslaughter.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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]

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.

And people have gone to jail for less.

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.

 

[Empyrean444]

Read what I said again. Fertilised eggs. Fertilised eggs. Eggs that have been fertilised. Sperm and egg joined together.

Human women routinely and spontaneously abort fertilised eggs.

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).

The intention issue Nebachessar (or whatever) said is also important here i feel.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

And people have gone to jail for less.

Oh come now. You know that's not a form of logical reasoning.

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.

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]

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]

no.

 

[Empyrean444]

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?

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.

Edit: possibly not actually in hindsight. The exact circumstances would be the determinant.

 

[Kwayera]

no.

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?

 

[Kwayera]

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.

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]

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?

This is a moral dilemma - i think the exact, individual circumstances would have to decide it.

 

[Kwayera]

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]

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.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

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?

you can hardly be responsible for something you're unaware of.

 

[katie tully]

you can hardly be responsible for something you're unaware of.

Yes you can

If you run over a pedestrian you're unaware of, you're still responsible for their death