The Abortion Debate

[TPauSilver]

Why are we arguing this people? It's meaningless. I can't go out and stab someone because I deam then guilty. I can't go out and stab them because I deam them innocent. It's a non-starter argument becasue "It's so innocent, you can't kill it" imples that it's ok to kill someone if we find them guilty. Some would argue it's ok if they are guilty of something extremely horrible, though I'm not among them, but we'd all agree simply being judged guilty of something is not enough for you to be killed, so why is simply being judged innocent of something enough to allow you not only the right to life but the right to continue that life at the expense of another person?

[JANUX 99]

[JANUX 99]

TPauSilver

Why are we arguing this people? It's meaningless. I can't go out and stab someone because I deam then guilty. I can't go out and stab them because I deam them innocent. It's a non-starter argument becasue "It's so innocent, you can't kill it" imples that it's ok to kill someone if we find them guilty. Some would argue it's ok if they are guilty of something extremely horrible, though I'm not among them, but we'd all agree simply being judged guilty of something is not enough for you to be killed, so why is simply being judged innocent of something enough to allow you not only the right to life but the right to continue that life at the expense of another person?

You people are the ones arguing a definition here.
A fetus has the capacity of innocence. Just like your damn hand can. Which is less significant than a fetus [argue with me on that one.. I dare you].

Consequence is seperate from guilt and innocence.
I never said that because something is innocenent, it has the right to life. Though.. From a humane perspective.. That's entirely true.

[TPauSilver]

[JANUX 99]

[ShadowIce]

DiGital Lucifer

You have a good point there.

Why thank you redface biggrin

[JANUX 99]

[JANUX 99]

ShadowIce

DiGital Lucifer

You have a good point there.

Why thank you redface biggrin

Sorry, didn't really explain myself.
But you did such a good job at it that I find it pointless to repeat you. 3nodding

[Kata Samoes]

DiGital Lucifer

Sorry if I sound rather blunt...
But I proved a fetus' ability to hold guilt. Therefore it has the ability to hold innocence. To top it off, I was able to show how it could hold innocence as opposed to some techincal theory of how it could hold either innocence or guilt.

This is not a matter of what I believe.. It's a matter of getting the english definition straight and logically deduce how it is a fetus can possibly hold a word such as guilty or innocent without being on techincality, theorm or some parallel logic that 'should' relate.

You haven't proved anything. What I'm trying to say is that it has to be AWARE to have the potential of being guilty, in order to hold innocence. It isn't, so it's neither innocent nor guilty.

Same with the rock.

[TPauSilver]

DiGital Lucifer

I don't know how to explain that better than: Put the Fetus in it's OWN Catagory. It's a person, not a placenta.

Head, meet desk.

I did not say the fetus was a placenta. I did not say the fetus was a parasite. I did not say the fetus was parasite like. But the fetus forms the placenta. The placenta is like a parasitic takeover of the woman’s body. Though the fetus in and of itself is not a parasite is causes something that is parasite-like and is completely dependent upon that thing for life. Going back to the original point, it is guilt or forming that organ. That organ would not have been formed had the fetus not implanted and stimulated it’s growth, so the fetus is guilty of causing a parasite-like takeover of the woman’s body, though it is not in itself the parasite.

Is that clear enough for you? I don’t know how I can make it any plainer!

[JANUX 99]

Sorcerer Kata Samoes

DiGital Lucifer

Sorry if I sound rather blunt...
But I proved a fetus' ability to hold guilt. Therefore it has the ability to hold innocence. To top it off, I was able to show how it could hold innocence as opposed to some techincal theory of how it could hold either innocence or guilt.

This is not a matter of what I believe.. It's a matter of getting the english definition straight and logically deduce how it is a fetus can possibly hold a word such as guilty or innocent without being on techincality, theorm or some parallel logic that 'should' relate.

You haven't proved anything. What I'm trying to say is that it has to be AWARE to have the potential of being guilty, in order to hold innocence. It isn't, so it's neither innocent nor guilty.

Same with the rock.

[EDIT]

Oh... So now things have to have some form of consiousness to be the cause of something? Which in short.. Guilty?
I can understand that there is a level of understanding of guilt needed to understand innocence, but I don't agree that the object [whatever it is] has to be aware of anything to be guilty of something it had direct cause to.

If the Sun explodes, and destroys the earth.. It's the cause [though saying it's guilty may seem a bit strange as opposed to just saying the Sun blew up and destroyed the Earth] and is thus guilty. Especially considering the destruction of the earth would bring great and permanent devistation [which is harmful] to the human race.
Tell me.. How do you logically explain that the sun isn't Guilty of being the cause of the destruction?

[ClosedInGirl]

[JANUX 99]

[Kata Samoes]

Your arguments make no sense, I do not see the grounds you're basing them off of.

[ShadowIce]

DiGital Lucifer

Your point? You just supplied guilt; denouncing any earlier claim of an inability to be guilty.
My comment about you being specific was that you're associating the Fetus with the placenta [for logical reasons] for the purpose of explaining guilt of it being a parasite. Though.. My problem is that it's not the only one responsible for that placenta. Infact.. It's just doing the natural thing it should be doing; yes, it's guilty of that. Who cares? It's still an innocent person who didn't ask for anyone to bring it into the world in the first place, is it not?

But it doesn't matter if it is doing what is natural or not. It is natural for the sun to explode. The sun would then be guilty. It is natural for the fetus to forcibily leech nutrients from the woman's body. The fetus is guilty. (assuming for the moment that they are not in fact both innocent by their virtue of being unaware).

Thus it isn't an innocent person. (even assuming for the moment that it is a person, which I dispute)

But I'm with you on the "who cares." ninja (assuming we are using your definition of innocent) If innocent is as you defined, then innocent doesn't mean much to me. Then again, neither doesn't being guilty. I'd need to find new words. Bwahaha.