The Abortion Debate

[Moniquill]

DiGital Lucifer

Which is what? Because I see absolutely not rational way of calling a fetus non-human.

Which no one is trying to do.
We are arguing that not all humans are persons and not all persons are humans. That they are sperately defined terms. Can you prove that they are not? Can you irrevocably define personhood? Because humanity's been trying to do that for a while.

[divineseraph]

caela_rue

divineseraph

punishing them? no,

Could have fooled me, because what your said came across as wanting to punish women for acting upon their sexual desires without wanting to keep a pregnancy.

Quote:

forcing them to allow life to exist.... is that so bad, really?

When you are removing their right to maintain their own bodily integrity, yes. It's also as illegal as hell.

Quote:

it's the same thing as telling people not to murder- i am trying to save and allow the existance of lives-

That might be what you think you are doing. To me, you are stripping a woman of her right to say what happens to her body and when, and superimposing your personal morals onto her life, whether or not she shares them.

Quote:

it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

Anyone who has ever been pregnant would hardly call it a "little bit of inconvenience." Pregnancy is a hard state to be in, even if a woman wants to carry to term. Forcing a woman to go through that when she doesn't want to would be construed as cruel and unusual punishment (also against the Constitution, and therefore illegal.)

but it's not punishment.

[Moniquill]

divineseraph

punishing them? no, forcing them to allow life to exist.... is that so bad, really?

Yes.

divineseraph

it's the same thing as telling people not to murder- i am trying to save and allow the existance of lives- it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

Who are you to determine that infringement upon MY bodily integrity is mere'y 'a little bit of inconvenience'?

[Katsuya Ishtar]

divineseraph

malikpossessed

divineseraph

Moniquill

divineseraph

and cancer will develop a heartbeat?

Can you irrevocably prove that it won't?

science can "prove" nothing, only make theorems and laws... and cancer has never developed a heart or heartbeat, so the most likely theory is that it cannot. it is possible that it could. it is also possible that gravity will reverse itself, or that all the molecules in existance will suddenly demagnetize and end existance

And the fetus may miscarry.

that would be accidental- if you accidentally kill someone, say, hit them with a car when they run out into the road- it will be manslaughter, not murder. the person is still dead, but it was not intended to be so.

It's not accidental, if you concieve, the zygote must put out chemicals so that you will not miscarry, because biologically, your immune system will attack it and treat it like a disease.

[divineseraph]

malikpossessed

divineseraph

Moniquill

divineseraph

stop. go directly to biology. do not pass go, do not collect $200.
since when are bacteria more advanced than a fetus? a zygote is more advanced than bacteria. sperm cells and egg cells, maybe. but once they meet, it is a human.

Actually, once they meet is is an oocyte. Both the sperm and egg cells were exactly as human as the oocyte before they combined.

Bacteria is more biologically advanced because it is biologically complete. A fetus isn't. Bacteria can at least maintain homeostasis.

define dependant- yes, it is true that a fetus needs a mother to live, but so does bacteria- just as you need food to live. thus, by this "dependancy" argument, nothing is complex or alive, as it cannot live without the aid of outside forces

Dependent- what a fetus and parasites are

Interdependent-what the birds on the rhino's back and rhino to the birds are

yes, and you are dependant on solar energy to create the source of energy that not only heats the planet but allows food to grow. so, you are dependant on outside forces, just as is a fetus.

[CAPTAIN Plixy[Stix]]

divineseraph

that would be accidental- if you accidentally kill someone, say, hit them with a car when they run out into the road- it will be manslaughter, not murder. the person is still dead, but it was not intended to be so.

The point of abortion is to terminate pregnancy.

It's not our fault that the fetus can't survive out of the womb on it's own.

[Katsuya Ishtar]

divineseraph

malikpossessed

divineseraph

Moniquill

divineseraph

stop. go directly to biology. do not pass go, do not collect $200.
since when are bacteria more advanced than a fetus? a zygote is more advanced than bacteria. sperm cells and egg cells, maybe. but once they meet, it is a human.

Actually, once they meet is is an oocyte. Both the sperm and egg cells were exactly as human as the oocyte before they combined.

Bacteria is more biologically advanced because it is biologically complete. A fetus isn't. Bacteria can at least maintain homeostasis.

define dependant- yes, it is true that a fetus needs a mother to live, but so does bacteria- just as you need food to live. thus, by this "dependancy" argument, nothing is complex or alive, as it cannot live without the aid of outside forces

Dependent- what a fetus and parasites are

Interdependent-what the birds on the rhino's back and rhino to the birds are

yes, and you are dependant on solar energy to create the source of energy that not only heats the planet but allows food to grow. so, you are dependant on outside forces, just as is a fetus.

But a fetus can make us sick.

[Moniquill]

DiGital Lucifer

True. But I could say conception is a naturalization into existance. But regardless, my point lies on the fact that it says no PERSON shall be deprived of life by any state.
Considering we still have yet to classify a fetus as not a Person.. I don't see the point.

But law has done that. Law classifies the fetus as a nonperson. You cana rgue that it should change, but not that it isn't currently so.

[LadyDarcia]

divineseraph

caela_rue

divineseraph

punishing them? no,

Could have fooled me, because what your said came across as wanting to punish women for acting upon their sexual desires without wanting to keep a pregnancy.

Quote:

forcing them to allow life to exist.... is that so bad, really?

When you are removing their right to maintain their own bodily integrity, yes. It's also as illegal as hell.

Quote:

it's the same thing as telling people not to murder- i am trying to save and allow the existance of lives-

That might be what you think you are doing. To me, you are stripping a woman of her right to say what happens to her body and when, and superimposing your personal morals onto her life, whether or not she shares them.

Quote:

it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

Anyone who has ever been pregnant would hardly call it a "little bit of inconvenience." Pregnancy is a hard state to be in, even if a woman wants to carry to term. Forcing a woman to go through that when she doesn't want to would be construed as cruel and unusual punishment (also against the Constitution, and therefore illegal.)

but it's not punishment.

How the ******** should you know? You're not a woman, so I doubt as hell you've ever been pregnant.

[divineseraph]

Moniquill

divineseraph

punishing them? no, forcing them to allow life to exist.... is that so bad, really?

Yes.

divineseraph

it's the same thing as telling people not to murder- i am trying to save and allow the existance of lives- it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

Who are you to determine that infringement upon MY bodily integrity is mere'y 'a little bit of inconvenience'?

you're weak.

"MY rights. MY fun. MY life" get over yourself

[Moniquill]

divineseraph

yes, and you are dependant on solar energy to create the source of energy that not only heats the planet but allows food to grow. so, you are dependant on outside forces, just as is a fetus.

And I never claimed that I have a right to existence.
I don't believe that anything ever does.

[Katsuya Ishtar]

divineseraph

Moniquill

divineseraph

punishing them? no, forcing them to allow life to exist.... is that so bad, really?

Yes.

divineseraph

it's the same thing as telling people not to murder- i am trying to save and allow the existance of lives- it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

Who are you to determine that infringement upon MY bodily integrity is mere'y 'a little bit of inconvenience'?

you're weak.

"MY rights. MY fun. MY life" get over yourself

And I think those that are suicidal are weak.

Yes, we are selfish, and I GLADLY admit it.

[divineseraph]

LadyDarcia

divineseraph

caela_rue

divineseraph

punishing them? no,

Could have fooled me, because what your said came across as wanting to punish women for acting upon their sexual desires without wanting to keep a pregnancy.

Quote:

forcing them to allow life to exist.... is that so bad, really?

When you are removing their right to maintain their own bodily integrity, yes. It's also as illegal as hell.

Quote:

it's the same thing as telling people not to murder- i am trying to save and allow the existance of lives-

That might be what you think you are doing. To me, you are stripping a woman of her right to say what happens to her body and when, and superimposing your personal morals onto her life, whether or not she shares them.

Quote:

it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

Anyone who has ever been pregnant would hardly call it a "little bit of inconvenience." Pregnancy is a hard state to be in, even if a woman wants to carry to term. Forcing a woman to go through that when she doesn't want to would be construed as cruel and unusual punishment (also against the Constitution, and therefore illegal.)

but it's not punishment.

How the ******** should you know? You're not a woman, so I doubt as hell you've ever been pregnant.

yes, and i also won't contribute to it until i'm ready- i'm no hypocrite, i'm abstinant.

[_C r y s t a l_RB]

divineseraph

Moniquill

divineseraph

punishing them? no, forcing them to allow life to exist.... is that so bad, really?

Yes.

divineseraph

it's the same thing as telling people not to murder- i am trying to save and allow the existance of lives- it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

Who are you to determine that infringement upon MY bodily integrity is mere'y 'a little bit of inconvenience'?

you're weak.

"MY rights. MY fun. MY life" get over yourself

Get over yourself Mr. Selfrighteous.

[Beatrix the catgirl]

divineseraph

Moniquill

divineseraph

punishing them? no, forcing them to allow life to exist.... is that so bad, really?

Yes.

divineseraph

it's the same thing as telling people not to murder- i am trying to save and allow the existance of lives- it is worth a little bit of inconvenience.

Who are you to determine that infringement upon MY bodily integrity is mere'y 'a little bit of inconvenience'?

you're weak.

"MY rights. MY fun. MY life" get over yourself

How about you get off YOUR high horse instead?

Why is YOUR opinion more valuable than hers?