Do you support Roe Vs. Wade?

[Super Mikey]

It's a perfectly fair assessment, I've had productive conversations with other people in this thread that I don't share their views. While I don't agree with them I respect their views, you show no such level of respect you push your morality and wish to make it the law of the land. You dismiss my views as naive simply because they don't conform to yours.

There is nothing productive about talking to you so from this point on, so piss off.

When engaging in debate, it is not rude or disrespectful to claim that your opponent reasons fallaciously or engages in bad reasoning. That’s just standard debate procedure. Yet, that’s all I did: I claimed that you’re reasoning naively on that one issue. If you can’t handle those kinds of statements, then you’re not ready for debate. Sorry to say that so bluntly, but it’s true.

And you are reasoning naively about that issue. You cannot separate morality from all legislation. That won’t work. It can’t work. I already gave you an example of moral legislation. If you want further reasons, check out this article: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/11/1792/

 

[Super Mikey]

You make a strong argument.

Have you ever read Sagan's essay on abortion? In his words:

A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg--despite the fact that it's only potentially a baby--why isn't it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?

After conception, it is a human being, and if left alone and nurtured, it will develop into an adult, human being. We don’t say that it is potentially a human being, it is one, whether it is spontaneously miscarrried or not.

No sperm or egg is a potential, adult human. You can give it all the time and nurture in the world, but it will never be a baby nor a human adult. Why? Because it does not have that nature. Its nature is directed toward creating a human being, not ever being one. In contrast, a fertilized egg does have that nature. It might not develop into an adult human being, but that’s just because of incidental circumstances or shitty luck, or something else. In contrast, a sperm cannot develop into a human being, no matter what, because it’s impossible given its nature. It is not just incidental that a sperm doesn’t develop into an adult human being - it’s an essential fact of nature. It literally can’t.

Sagan misunderstands potentiality.

 

[dontsnitch]

After conception, it is a human being, and if left alone and nurtured, it will develop into an adult, human being. We don’t say that it is potentially a human being, it is one, whether it is spontaneously miscarrried or not.

No sperm or egg is a potential, adult human. You can give it all the time and nurture in the world, but it will never be a baby nor a human adult. Why? Because it does not have that nature. Its nature is directed toward creating a human being, not ever being one. In contrast, a fertilized egg does have that nature. It might not develop into an adult human being, but that’s just because of incidental circumstances or shitty luck, or something else. In contrast, a sperm cannot develop into a human being, no matter what, because it’s impossible given its nature. It is not just incidental that a sperm doesn’t develop into an adult human being - it’s an essential fact of nature. It literally can’t.

Sagan misunderstands potentiality.

I understand, now does the potential for life mean that a woman has to give birth? There's something missing from this equation.

I'll mull over your perspective, you've made strong points. If you haven't already, give Sagan's essay a fair shake, he does critique both sides.

 

[Super Mikey]

I understand, now does the potential for life mean that a woman has to give birth? There's something missing from this equation.

I'll mull over your perspective, you've made strong points. If you haven't already, give Sagan's essay a fair shake, he does critique both sides.

If the thing is a human being upon conception, and I have here argued that it is, then, prima facie, the woman should not abort, nor should it be legal for her to do so, because it has the right to life. The exception would be if having the baby threatened her life. On such cases, indirect abortion is justified.

 

[tkotom]

I'm an admitted nihilist. 100%

I'm not a militant atheist though. I only talk about it when im on here which is maybe 10-15 minutes per week. I just find religion to be the main reason this country is so divided and one side it completely without logic, facts or reason and it's really frustrating

I agree with you.

 

[IamStryker]

how do you determine who are the criminals before their criminal act? You have some "Minority Report" like pre-cog stuff going on there?
.

Weird question. What I said is a fact and has nothing to do with being psychic.

Fewer guns and more importantly less ammunition available would have an impact on the number of crimes committed with guns. Hell look at the old Chris Rock bit about if a bullet cost $5,000, people would think long and hard about what they are about to blow 5 Gs on.

Criminals have plenty of guns and ammunition and would probably be able to keep creating more on the black market. All we would be doing is disarming the good citizens.

There were always women having abortions, it would continue. The problem would be akin to the underground drug trade, you'd have people run a higher risk of complications and fatalities due to unethical or poorly trained performing them the same way people self prescribe the illegal drugs.

I don't believe that's accurate. Plenty of women get abortions because they are legal, easy to get, and socially acceptable. If they were legal the number would certainly go down.

Your ethics (as been demonstrated in this thread, and throughout many debates) are not the same as everyone else's, you can vilify that all you want but it's just a fact.

Weak argument for killing a living human being.

I don't regard it as killing, the fetus wouldn't survive on it's own outside the mother, it is a dependant entity, therefore it is the host organism's choice not mine.

I've never understood how this is even an argument that people actually use. I don't think being dependent on the mother changes anything. Infants are dependent on the mother as well. Hell lots of children are completely dependent on parents and can not take care of themselves. That doesn't mean it's ok to kill them. They are your responsibility because they are your children.

Don't mean to be insulting but, it's a "terrible argument" because you aren't open to other people's views. I understand and respect your views and wouldn't want to force you to do something you wouldn't feel morally against, but you have no reservations about shitting all over other people's' beliefs or positions. So with that, I consider this conversation done unless you wish to analyze this with some level of empathy, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I'm not open to bad arguments. Also don't assume I'm not empathetic to people. I can be empathetic and still not support abortion.

 

[IamStryker]

I reemphasize the difference between consent (the affirmative decision to do something) and accepting a risk. You can't even type the words you mean, so I'm not confident that you're making a cogent argument.

What I meant was very obvious and you knew what I meant immediately so I don't see the problem. You barely even changed what I said. I don't see any big difference between consenting directly and consenting to a risk. You are still consenting. You are still making a conscious choice. The pro abortion side wants to act like their child is some outside invader like a parasite which is complete nonsense.

 

[BEER]

What I meant was very obvious and you knew what I meant immediately so I don't see the problem. You barely even changed what I said. I don't see any big difference between consenting directly and consenting to a risk. You are still consenting. You are still making a conscious choice. The pro abortion side wants to act like their child is some outside invader like a parasite which is complete nonsense.

Consenting to sexual activity is not consenting to pregnancy. I don't see why that's a hard concept for you.

Luckily, we have the technology that eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

 

[ShinkanPo]

I think Wade gets this if Cecil Peoples is not judging.

Wade via Arm bar round 1

 

[IamStryker]

Consenting to sexual activity is not consenting to pregnancy. I don't see why that's a hard concept for you.

Luckily, we have the technology that eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

Consenting to the risk of getting pregnant is still consenting. I don't know why that's a hard concept for anyone. If you don't want to take that risk then don't. That is your choice.

 

[BEER]

Consenting to the risk of getting pregnant is still consenting. I don't know why that's a hard concept for anyone. If you don't want to take that risk then don't. That is your choice.

You know what else is your choice?

Abortion.

 

[Quipling]

Consenting to the risk of getting pregnant is still consenting. I don't know why that's a hard concept for anyone. If you don't want to take that risk then don't. That is your choice.

Is walking across the street consenting to getting hit by a car? Why even allow people in hospitals, amirite?

 

[IamStryker]

You know what else is your choice?

Abortion.

Abortion is sort of the topic. Derp.

It shouldn't be a choice because you decided to take the chance of getting pregnant. People enjoy being extremely irresponsible and taking out their decisions on others. That's what abortion is. I don't want to deal with the consequences of my decisions so I am going to kill my unborn child.

 

[IamStryker]

Is walking across the street consenting to getting hit by a car? Why even allow people in hospitals, amirite?

I think the route you are taking here is something like "Is breathing consenting to dying?". Yeah some things you can't really avoid doing like crossing the street. That's a bit different than consenting to reproduction.

 

[BEER]

Abortion is sort of the topic. Derp.

It shouldn't be a choice because you decided to take the chance of getting pregnant. People enjoy being extremely irresponsible and taking out their decisions on others. That's what abortion is. I don't want to deal with the consequences of my decisions so I am going to kill my unborn child.

Still a choice.

Live with it. I mean, you have to, because your mother decided not to abort you.

 

[MilesAbove]

I, for one, am looking forward to the rise in crime and poverty; as well as the high mortality rate from the unsafe abortions that are 100% going to happen.

You don't ban abortions. You ban safe abortions. Bottom line.

 

[MilesAbove]

Sperm cells are not human organisms: They do not have the nature of a human being, nor will they develop into an adult human being if given sufficient time and nurture. Zygotes and fetuses do have human natures and they will develop into adult human beings if given the time and nurturing necessary. Hence, sperm and zygotes are not the same thing, obviously, nor even comparable.

Unless the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, no abortion. If it does, then only indirect abortion is permitted.

There's a pretty glaring flaw in this logic. "nor will they develop into an adult human being if given sufficient time and nurture." That is literally the same for the zygote and for the fetus up to a particular point.

You are dealing with "potential" for the sperm/egg, zygote, and fetus. Potential is not actualized. Now, I'm all for saying there is a point in which we can reason that a fetus has reached a threshhold. And guess what, we already have barriers against late abortions.

But until you can find a way to differentiate potentials sufficiently, you're making a rather glaring logic error. There's literally no way to give precedent to a 2-week old cluster above a sperm, as neither are persons. Both are potential persons "given sufficient time and nurture".

 

[IamStryker]

Still a choice.

Live with it. I mean, you have to, because your mother decided not to abort you.

Lucky I had a good mother.

 

[IamStryker]

You are dealing with "potential" for the sperm/egg, zygote, and fetus. Potential is not actualized.

This is just not accurate. The sperm and egg represent potential. The zygote/fetus are something else. They are the realization of the potential. A separate growing human being.

But until you can find a way to differentiate potentials sufficiently, you're making a rather glaring logic error. There's literally no way to give precedent to a 2-week old cluster above a sperm, as neither are persons. Both are potential persons "given sufficient time and nurture".

Again this is not accurate. One is just a part of your body. The other is a growing human being.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

It's been precedent for nearly 50 years. Shouldn't be overturned all nilly willy. What happens most likely is it gets weakened, although some states might overplay their card by outright banning abortion, in which case the Court would be forced to either maintain precedent or engage in the type of judicial activism that right wingers are ostensibly against.