Abortion is murder

[AshtrayKitten]

I assume this is directed at me.

Originally Posted by Alarica

Seriously you fucking moron, if you are going to ask me something atleast have the intelligence to read what i've already posted.

Abortion LAWS were put in place for a reason. Yes, in a medical case i do agree with abortions for most of the reasons a woman may choose to have 1. I DO NOT agree with them, as someone else said, when it is simply viewed as an easy way out by girls who screw around having unprotected sex.

And as i said also, already. Without abortion being an option there would be more and more babies brought into the world unwanted and either MURDERED or dumped. China was my example because they actually have orphanages with a specific room called the dying room where they put the kids who the staff dont have time and cant be bothered to make a little more effort for, and they are left to die.

So those who are saying abortion is absolutely wrong will therefore agree that it is ok to dump a helpless baby after it is born and in a lot of cases, leave it to die?

I happen to think fox hunting is cruel, but it is necessary and should be done in a more humane way.

Why shouldn't abortion be a convenient, easy way out, if all you are doing is killing some bacteria?

You've addressed your own point by mentioning the necessary evil of fox hunting. Just because abortion would be recognized as killing doesn't mean it would have to stop, nor would it mean any and every alternative would be preferable to to it.

And bacteria doesnt have a brain (i swear some of you dont either), so in the arguement about killing before brain life begins, it has no point. Bacteria doesnt and will never have a brain, so you are clutching at straws to feed your opinion in this 'discussion'. Abortion isnt murder and more than a foetus knoting its umbilical cord and cutting off its life support, is fucking suicide

So a brain is the crux of when a human being is alive? Very well.

By 30 days a fetus has a brain, though higher brain functions have been not been developed.

At 26 weeks (6 months), higher brain functions are activated and the fetus becomes a sentient human being, able to feel pain and be conscious of its surroundings.

That your pick as to when it's killing and when it's not. Though by your logic, 30 days might be too late already. Unless a brain isn't the defining characteristic?

Originally Posted by Alarica

Besides you are then getting into a completely different ethical debate.

The headless undead fetus comparison opens the doors to other topics regarding identity and what in a human stores consciousness or a soul, but the assertion that its status as a human life rests entirely on its growth is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Raptor

Colours are arbitrary names, you could formally declare blue as pink and pink as blue. Then the sky would be pink. But what's the point, it still looks the same as it did before, and it's still 480nm wavelength or whatever it is.

That's pretty much how I see your argument here, as far as I can tell you don't want to change anything other than the word people use. What's the objective of that? You're already free to call it what you want, as is everyone else.

Allow me to explain the difference between what something is named, and what something 'is.'

It has to do with something called an axiom. In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

A set of axioms must be consistent; it should be impossible to derive a contradiction from the axiom.

If x is true then so must be y. If light being reflected off an apple is of a certain wavelength and that wavelength is given a name, and the same wavelength is seen reflected off another object, then the apple and object in question 'are' the same color.

Axioms make up what we call reality, Mr. Raptor (with rare exceptions such as 2 + 2 = 4, which will always hold true).

Here are some other axioms:

Gases expand.
Helium is a gas.
Helium expands.

Unfunny shows suck.
The Simpsons is unfunny.
The Simpsons suck.


Here is the axiom pertaining to this thread:

Extinguishing human life is homicide.
A fetus is human life.
Killing a fetus is homicide.

-or-

Extinguishing human life is homicide.
A fetus is not human life.
Killing a fetus is not homicide.


This should be sufficient in explaining the difference between what something should be named, and what something should be logically recognized as.

Or are you putting forward arguments for pro life in order to try to convince people not to have abortions, while leaving the law alone so that they still have the choice? If that's the case then they can still call abortion by whatever term they see fit.

I don't care if women have abortions. I'm not pro-life.

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Here is the axiom pertaining to this thread:

Extinguishing human life is homicide.
A fetus is human life.
Killing a fetus is homicide.

-or-

Extinguishing human life is homicide.
A fetus is not human life.
Killing a fetus is not homicide.

Exactly. There's nothing to be discussed here. It's all a matter of perspective, or morality, if you'd rather. No one party can define the moment when a fetus becomes a human to the satisfaction of an opposing party, so why even try?

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Mr. Raptor
Unfunny shows suck.
The Simpsons is unfunny.
The Simpsons suck.

Haha.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

If x is true then so must be y. If light being reflected off an apple is of a certain wavelength and that wavelength is given a name, and the same wavelength is seen reflected off another object, then the apple and object in question 'are' the same color.

Correct. But we were discussing the name of said colour. Same wavelength, same colour, same word. The word used is arbitrary though.

After all that, I still don't understand your point. You don't care if women have abortions. You just said there are two possible axioms:

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Extinguishing human life is homicide.
A fetus is human life.
Killing a fetus is homicide.

-or-

Extinguishing human life is homicide.
A fetus is not human life.
Killing a fetus is not homicide.

You follow the first line of thought, as you've already said you believe it's homicide. So what's your point, that everyone else should think the same as you?

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

Exactly. There's nothing to be discussed here. It's all a matter of perspective, or morality, if you'd rather. No one party can define the moment when a fetus becomes a human to the satisfaction of an opposing party, so why even try?

Yes and no.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Well, since person and non-person are both arbitrary classifications in themselves, why can't there be a magical line? Provided the issue is approached logically. If you believe x to be true, then so must y be true etc.

The statement "a fetus can't be a human being because it doesn't have a brain" can be disputed, as can other postulations such as "a fetus is alive because it has a heart."

A human being is alive as defined by requirement x.
Abortion at n weeks does not kill a human being.

A human being is alive as defined by requirement y.
Abortion at n weeks does kill a human being.

Fallacious requirements are eliminated. Eventually we can arrive at conclusions based on logical axioms. There's nothing that says that says we can't define a fetus as a human being or the moment it becomes one.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Correct. But we were discussing the name of said colour. Same wavelength, same colour, same word. The word used is arbitrary though.

I was referring to the reality.

After all that, I still don't understand your point. You don't care if women have abortions. You just said there are two possible axioms:

You follow the first line of thought, as you've already said you believe it's homicide.

And sought to demonstrate why, given the definition of homicide, it is.

So what's your point, that everyone else should think the same as you?

You say that as though if it's a matter of opinion, and not of logic. Do you think 2 + 2 = 4? Why should everyone else think the same as you?

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

Yes and no.


The statement "a fetus can't be a human being because it doesn't have a brain" can be disputed, as can other postulations such as "a fetus is alive because it has a heart."

A human being is alive as defined by requirement x.
Abortion at n weeks does not kill a human being.

A human being is alive as defined by requirement y.
Abortion at n weeks does kill a human being.

Fallacious requirements are eliminated. Eventually we can arrive at conclusions based on logical axioms. There's nothing that says that says we can't define a fetus as a human being or the moment it becomes one.

All of this is entirely dependent on the party that you're arguing with being receptive to your point of view. Who says that requirements x and/or y are acceptable to anyone besides you? If the party you're attempting to sway is deadset against you or your opinions, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of you convincing them. Why bother?

You're not defining homicide, but rather what the victim of a homicide in this case can be. You can go in circles over this issue for all eternity and still not reach a satisfactory conclusion.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

You say that as though if it's a matter of opinion, and not of logic.

Because you've decided that the very first cells are a person. No doubt they are alive. But how do you prove it's a person?

[Alarica]

Ashtray, if you insist on talking out of your arse at me, atleast have the intelligence to read the posts i have made before stripping from the waist and assuming the position.

Abortion shouldnt be considered a 'convenient, easy way out' simply because women are too quick to get laid and see it as a form of birth control. Abortion should be considered as a way to prevent bringing unwanted children into the world to suffer, in cases such as **** where the woman will probably never bond with or want the baby and cannot face 9 months carrying something she hates because of how it was created, and it IS considered the best option medically if a woman is found to be carrying a baby with a serious birth defect that would leave it with a very poor quality of life. FOR EXAMPLE A major chiari 2 malformation.

The fox hunting is much the same. but it should be done in a humane way. Terminations of pregnancy, is the name given to the procedure carried out from the 24th-32nd week of pregnancy. If this is a problem for you take it up with a medical board, not me.

I said that before brain life, it is not alive. In terms of human life the headless foetus was an identical twin. It appeared human from what had developed but it was missing its head AND brain and therefore was not viable with life. I am assuming, seeing as you spout so much bollox that you actually understand that from the point at which a live baby is cut from the womb and the umbilical cord severed, its brain takes over its functions. Therefore with no brain and no head you have a lifeless, headless body. Keeping it alive makes as much sense as keeping alive the body of JFK.

I dont share your view on abortion being murder because it isnt that simple, but you have proven you dont really know anything other than a last minute attempt to search wikipedia for some development stages of the brain functions etc.

[AshtrayKitten]

Originally Posted by PinstripesAndPithHelmets

All of this is entirely dependent on the party that you're arguing with being receptive to your point of view. Who says that requirements x and/or y are acceptable to anyone besides you? If the party you're attempting to sway is deadset against you or your opinions, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of you convincing them. Why bother?

You're not defining homicide, but rather what the victim of a homicide in this case can be. You can go in circles over this issue for all eternity and still not reach a satisfactory conclusion.

I don't think you see what the approach is here. If someone says having a heart makes one human, and zygotes not having one makes them something else, I can show that to be incorrect, since many animals have hearts but are not considered human.

That the statement is false is not a point of view. The logic doesn't require convincing to be accepted, but comprehension.

Defining what the victim is in homicide is defining homicide but I get the point. Earlier I made it clear that abortion being homicide is contingent on a human being dying, and that I believe a zygote to be a human being, human life, whatever you prefer. I presented what led me to that conclusion and invited others to challenge the logic. They have failed so far, but since it's entirely possible I've made a mistake, I sit and wait for the imperfection to be revealed.


---

Originally Posted by Raptor

Because you've decided that the very first cells are a person. No doubt they are alive. But how do you prove it's a person?

As person is a human classification, we can determine whether or not it applies to the very first cells.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

I happen to believe that a zygote constitutes human life. Here's why:

It is alive.

It is genetically distinct human organism.

Most importantly, if permitted to carry out its living functions it will mature into a person.

At no point is its life interrupted. Now one might say that yes, it is alive, but not yet a human being, that it transforms into one later in its development. That's fine and a valid area of debate. But unless I'm mistaken, by current definitions it is a unique, human life form.

If it isn't a human life form, so be it. Aborting a zygote could not be considered homicide then.


---

Originally Posted by Alarica

Ashtray, if you insist on talking out of your arse at me, atleast have the intelligence to read the posts i have made before stripping from the waist and assuming the position.

Ok!

Abortion shouldnt be considered a 'convenient, easy way out' simply because women are too quick to get laid and see it as a form of birth control.

You repeat this over and over without explaining why it shouldn't be so. I asked out of curiosity, but if you're unable to provide an answer we'll drop it.

Abortion should be considered as a way to prevent bringing unwanted children into the world to suffer, in cases such as **** where the woman will probably never bond with or want the baby and cannot face 9 months carrying something she hates because of how it was created, and it IS considered the best option medically if a woman is found to be carrying a baby with a serious birth defect that would leave it with a very poor quality of life. FOR EXAMPLE A major chiari 2 malformation.

The fox hunting is much the same. but it should be done in a humane way. Terminations of pregnancy, is the name given to the procedure carried out from the 24th-32nd week of pregnancy.

That's wonderful.

If this is a problem for you take it up with a medical board, not me.

AshtrayWisdom: You've addressed your own point by mentioning the necessary evil of fox hunting. Just because abortion would be recognized as killing doesn't mean it would have to stop, nor would it mean any and every alternative would be preferable to it.

I'll draw it in crayon for you when I repeat it a third time.

I said that before brain life, it is not alive. In terms of human life the headless foetus was an identical twin. It appeared human from what had developed but it was missing its head AND brain and therefore was not viable with life. I am assuming, seeing as you spout so much bollox that you actually understand that from the point at which a live baby is cut from the womb and the umbilical cord severed, its brain takes over its functions. Therefore with no brain and no head you have a lifeless, headless body. Keeping it alive makes as much sense as keeping alive the body of JFK.

A bit of thinking will save you a lot of typing. I recommend you review the thread.

Albert Mond: You said that human life begins at conception. If a fetus can grow while dead, then being conceived hardly makes a 'living' human fetus alive.

AshtrayWisdom: The same goes for our fetus. That a headless fetus can continue to grow is of no consequence. Whether or not what's left grows or decomposes (or runs around like a decapped chicken does), the tenure of the human life is over.

I dont share your view on abortion being murder because it isnt that simple, but you have proven you dont really know anything other than a last minute attempt to search wikipedia for some development stages of the brain functions etc.

Grammatically correct flames are typically more effective (I cannot "know" a last minute attempt to search Wikipedia for some development stages). Even though you proceeded in the entirely wrong direction, you could have gone further.

Alarica: I don't share your POV on abortion, but all you've demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Frantically Googling brain development milestones does not make you the least bit more learned on this very relevant matter. You also smell of poo.

[Alarica]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

I don't share your POV on abortion, but all you've demonstrated is a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Frantically Googling brain development milestones does not make you the least bit more learned on this very relevant matter. You also smell of poo.[/i]

LMFAO My complete lack of knowledge on brain development milestones? THAT would be you this applies to, not me. I can assure you that being a mother of 4 children, i know far more on not only the developmental process of the developing foetus than you do, but i can also assure you i know far more about Spina Bifida, Hydrocephalus and a Chiari 2 malformation than you do. The latter 2 being brain damage. The brain being the organ of the body vital to a human survival and an organ you have already proven, you know nothing about.

Seeing as the extent of your arguement has been a lame attempt at re-writing shite you got from wikipedia and then the kind of immature attempt at a come back that i would expect to hear from my 3yr old, i can only assume that you are just another retarded 15yr old with nothing better to do than gabble off crap he heard in church.

If you will behave like a child, i am more than experienced enough to treat you as such. It is way past your bedtime, so off you go, and dont come back until you can speak nicely

[Raptor]

Ok I see what you're saying now.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

If it isn't a human life form, so be it. Aborting a zygote could not be considered homicide then.

So you would want someone to challenge your logic of what makes a human life form to argue with you about whether or not it could count as homicide.

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

I happen to believe that a zygote constitutes human life. Here's why:

It is alive.

It is genetically distinct human organism.

Most importantly, if permitted to carry out its living functions it will mature into a person.

Your points are all true, but whether or not that makes the zygote a person is the argument. What of conciousness? At the begining, the cells are not concious, nor have they been previously. To count this as a person, you either have to decide that conciousness is not required, or that the fact it could later develop conciousness is reason enough to define it as a person.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Alarica

If you will behave like a child, i am more than experienced enough to treat you as such. It is way past your bedtime, so off you go, and dont come back until you can speak nicely

You are acting less mature than him.

I'm not sure why you accuse him of hearing things at church, when he's said he isn't against abortion.

[Bat Attack]

Originally Posted by Raptor

You are acting less mature than him.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Alarica, no one would ever expect that you were a mother. I pity your children.

[Alarica]

absolutely. couldnt agree more. Of course you are right. It is very mature to start a thread and let it go on for pages, when you dont have a clue what you are talking about especially with regards to comments about keeping a headless foetus alive, and ending his idiocy with comments a 3yr old makes 'you also smell of poo'. Could not agree more.

As for him saying he isnt against abortion, to be honest i couldnt care less. He started the thread titled 'Abortion is murder'. He should be able to back up his reasoning as to WHY it is murder, and in light of that should be able to understand why other people dont see that and understand the fundamentals of biology and the function of the brain.

And learn to read. I said if he is going to insist on behaving like a child i will treat him like 1.

[Alarica]

Originally Posted by Bat Attack

Exactly what I was going to say.

Alarica, no one would ever expect that you were a mother. I pity your children.

Awww is that seriously the best you can do? Pity away. Its idiots like you who state things they cant back up with reason, that i work hard to avoid my children growing up to be like. Child, grow up and get a grip. Going for the cheap shot shows your immaturity.

[Bat Attack]

Oh dear, what a hypocritical statement:

Originally Posted by Alarica

Its idiots like you who state things they cant back up with reason,

You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Bat Attack]

Originally Posted by Alarica

and ending his idiocy with comments a 3yr old makes 'you also smell of poo'.

An immature, infantile and dim-witted being such as you is only worthy of such an immature insult.

[Xombie]

Ashtray, are you a vegetarian?

[SKULHEDFACE]

I got something to say
I killed your baby today
And it doesn't matter much to me
As long as it's dead

[$haDe]

This was a very interesting topic of discussion...until someone start bringing others down and turn an arguement into a battlefield.

[Alarica]

It was, you are right. I'm sorry for my part in it

[$haDe]

^

No need to be sorry for sharing your opinions.

It's your right !

[Maggoty Anne]

Originally Posted by $haDe

^

No need to be sorry for sharing your opinions.

It's your right !

And I respect you opinion as well, as long as your not trying to take away my right to control my body. What really drives me up the wall are shit-heads who put words in pro-choicer mouths.

Originally Posted by Jan Ireland

The abortion industry is a vital part of the nation's economy. In these uncertain economic times, we cannot put people out of jobs.

What. The. Fuck.

Originally Posted by Kevin Burke

Since all liberals have had or want to have abortions, they hate Sarah Palin (and apparently Bristol!) for not having one.

*Spits out aborted fetus I was eating* Eh? What about it?



Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

[Maggoty Anne]

Fuck, editing time's up.

This is the only type of abortion I can fully agree with, an abortion for the sake of life. I cannot agree with abortion on a whim because someone was too irresponsible to have safe sex, or because they suddenly decided they didn't WANT a child. To me it's like shooting someone on a whim because you don't like them.

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

[PinstripesAndPithHelmets]

Originally Posted by AshtrayKitten

I don't think you see what the approach is here. If someone says having a heart makes one human, and zygotes not having one makes them something else, I can show that to be incorrect, since many animals have hearts but are not considered human.

That the statement is false is not a point of view. The logic doesn't require convincing to be accepted, but comprehension.

Defining what the victim is in homicide is defining homicide but I get the point. Earlier I made it clear that abortion being homicide is contingent on a human being dying, and that I believe a zygote to be a human being, human life, whatever you prefer. I presented what led me to that conclusion and invited others to challenge the logic. They have failed so far, but since it's entirely possible I've made a mistake, I sit and wait for the imperfection to be revealed.

This is my point. You consider a zygote human, and others do not. I understand that you can prove that a zygote meets certain biological criteria, but that criteria will certainly not be good enough for some.

You say that homicide is killing a human, and that a human is X. If a zygote has X, then killing a zygote is killing a human. Therefore, killing a zygote is homicide.

Your entire point is based on accepting X as criteria for being human, which, seeing as though there isn't any real way of proving a zygote to be human (short of convincing linguistic flair), many people simply won't
accept. Hell, the theory of evolution has all kinds of supporting evidence, but there are still religious fundamentalists that just put on their blinders.