Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Many slowed persons cannot make cognitive sense. Can they be retroactively aborted?
How about people in comas?
So the test is mental? I have a whole list of people who wouldn't make that test, including the entire US congress...

No Frazz, It isnt.

See, i can understand photo making these statements, but not you mate. I rather like you, and you are above this type of argument.

What with his "nuke the world, simple eh?!" or "I cant survive in space so am I a human?" (Or whatever the feth he comes out with, Ive stopped reading what he types) garbage.

The point I was onbiously making was that there is a difference between an actual living human, and a foetus. Even the most hugely disabled person, both physically and mentally has far far far far, 10,000 times a thousand, more senses than a foetus, and you knew exactly what I was getting at, so why try to grossly misrepresent what I am saying? Of course its not just mental.

A foetus isnt born yet. When its born, then yes its a person, but a ball of cells isnt a person, and common sense and Science have said that about 24 weeks is a good cut off date for when the foetus becomes an actual baby. It makes sense, and thats why the law is the way that it is. At ten weeks a foestus cant feel anything, has no emotions, it basically it utterly unaware of its existence, and the "oh lets all gas disabled people then" argument is childish, because you and I both know that that isnt what anybody is proposing.

Anyway, im off to play wow. But just remember, the law is on my side, and abortions are getting cracked every day. So I win.

And the more toothless state fed simpletons that I see breeding like rats... the more I think its a wonderful thing.

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Many slowed persons cannot make cognitive sense. Can they be retroactively aborted?
How about people in comas?
So the test is mental? I have a whole list of people who wouldn't make that test, including the entire US congress...

No Frazz, It isnt.

See, i can understand photo making these statements, but not you mate. I rather like you, and you are above this type of argument.

What with his "nuke the world, simple eh?!" or "I cant survive in space so am I a human?" (Or whatever the feth he comes out with, Ive stopped reading what he types) garbage.

The point I was onbiously making was that there is a difference between an actual living human, and a foetus. Even the most hugely disabled person, both physically and mentally has far far far far, 10,000 times a thousand, more senses than a foetus, and you knew exactly what I was getting at, so why try to grossly misrepresent what I am saying? Of course its not just mental.

A foetus isnt born yet. When its born, then yes its a person, but a ball of cells isnt a person, and common sense and Science have said that about 24 weeks is a good cut off date for when the foetus becomes an actual baby. It makes sense, and thats why the law is the way that it is. At ten weeks a foestus cant feel anything, has no emotions, it basically it utterly unaware of its existence, and the "oh lets all gas disabled people then" argument is childish, because you and I both know that that isnt what anybody is proposing.

Anyway, im off to play wow. But just remember, the law is on my side, and abortions are getting cracked every day. So I win.

And the more toothless state fed simpletons that I see breeding like rats... the more I think its a wonderful thing.

The problem is you're not actually defining anything, just making statements. Thats why its a slippery slope. Frankly you should have stuck with your argument about the appearance of pain, its a slightly definable term.

You think I'm being daft but all these arguments have been made by people pushing agendas, including certain "bioethicists" arguing babies shouldn't have any rights for several months AFTER birth.

What's a foetus?

We call it fetus here.

So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?

halonachos wrote:So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?

Welcome to dakka OT!

ChrisWWII wrote:

halonachos wrote:So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?

Welcome to dakka OT!

Looks like someone didn't check the number of posts... it usually goes this way but I've never seen Matty argue with Frazzled before. The OT is changing after all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I now declare this thread silly and anyone who posts after this post silly as well.

halonachos wrote:

ChrisWWII wrote:

halonachos wrote:So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?

Welcome to dakka OT!

Looks like someone didn't check the number of posts... it usually goes this way but I've never seen Matty argue with Frazzled before. The OT is changing after all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I now declare this thread silly and anyone who posts after this post silly as well.

In that spirit.

SilverMK2 wrote:There is a point at which a ball of cells becomes a "human being" and it is generally established that most western nations which permit the use of abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) have set the latest stage you can abort at or around that point (with certain exceptions as mentioned such as if the mother will be in terminal danger if the pregnancy is allowed to continue). This is determined as scientifically as possible and is based off many different lines of research.

The problem is that the question isn't as simple as "What is a human being?" That's one relevant question (and its really not a very simple one), sure, but its only one of many. Just a short list:

"How should human beings be treated ideally?"
"How Should human beings be treated practically?"
"If we can dispose of some human beings because we don't want them (murderers etc.), then why cannot we not dispose of a fetus if we don't want it?"
"If there is a meaningful distinction between being something one way (a murderer) and being something in another way (a fetus), what is it?"
"If the answer is choice, then what is choice?"

...and so on.

ChrisWWII wrote:

halonachos wrote:So this conversation has went from a discussion about a law that makes it legal for a relative to kill the doctor giving another relative(as long as its not a cousin) an abortion, but only at the time the abortion is being carried out to a flame war about abortion rights and matty saying that he hates drains on the social state?

Welcome to dakka OT!

Lol.

dogma wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:There is a point at which a ball of cells becomes a "human being" and it is generally established that most western nations which permit the use of abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies (for whatever reason) have set the latest stage you can abort at or around that point (with certain exceptions as mentioned such as if the mother will be in terminal danger if the pregnancy is allowed to continue). This is determined as scientifically as possible and is based off many different lines of research.

The problem is that the question isn't as simple as "What is a human being?" That's one relevant question (and its really not a very simple one), sure, but its only one of many. Just a short list:

"How should human beings be treated ideally?"
"How Should human beings be treated practically?"
"If we can dispose of some human beings because we don't want them (murderers etc.), then why cannot we not dispose of a fetus if we don't want it?"
"If there is a meaningful distinction between being something one way (a murderer) and being something in another way (a fetus), what is it?"
"If the answer is choice, then what is choice?"

...and so on.

Oh my, I'm agreeing with Dogma. Whats ironical is that my position is close to Matty's...

Oh my, ironical is actually a word.

I for one love abortion. I see too many bad parents with stupid kids. I would like to see more abortions, not less. Adoption is a nice utopian idealistic solution in theory, but in practice it is overtaxing and unrealistic. State sponsored sterilization is the way to go, but then I don't expect to get elected any time soon either.

When you go down that route Chairman Mao would like to welcome you into the People's Republic.. along with the rest of its human rights' abuses.

See, i can understand photo making these statements, but not you mate. I rather like you, and you are above this type of argument.
What with his "nuke the world, simple eh?!" or "I cant survive in space so am I a human?" (Or whatever the feth he comes out with, Ive stopped reading what he types) garbage.

Flamebait? I'm not that flammable.

The example of 'nuke the world' is to prevent suffering.

The point I was onbiously making was that there is a difference between an actual living human, and a foetus. Even the most hugely disabled person, both physically and mentally has far far far far, 10,000 times a thousand, more senses than a foetus, and you knew exactly what I was getting at, so why try to grossly misrepresent what I am saying? Of course its not just mental.

10,000 eh? This 'statistic' comes from where? What research? Are you a neuro-scientist?
There's a difference between me and a child, me an my brother, you and me, we're all different, what's your point - it's ok to kill/abort/terminate those who are different? The Jews were different...

A foetus isnt born yet. When its born, then yes its a person, but a ball of cells isnt a person, and common sense and Science have said that about 24 weeks is a good cut off date for when the foetus becomes an actual baby. It makes sense, and thats why the law is the way that it is. At ten weeks a foestus cant feel anything, has no emotions, it basically it utterly unaware of its existence, and the "oh lets all gas disabled people then" argument is childish, because you and I both know that that isnt what anybody is proposing.

Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person? You are a collection of organs, made of tissues made of cells. Why isn't a fetus a person? Common sense is sadly not that common and 'consensus' of an arbitrary date isn't fact. Essentially you're saying that science has said: magically overnight after week 23 day 6 hour 23 minute 59 and second 59 the 'clump of cells' becomes a person?
Science does not work that way.

Mr Meatballs wrote:Good ol' American south. so civilised so educated.

despite its name... its in the north

ALSO...

I'm not sure someone LEGALLY performing abortions would qualify as a someone causing harm... I think this bill wouldn't cover non legal versions... like someone punching a pregnant woman in the stomach....

I think the issue is harming the foetus rather than the mother.

corpsesarefun wrote:I think the issue is harming the foetus rather than the mother.

Usually happens dude if the baby is in the womb and you punch the mom... conservation of momentum and all... I can't see how it COULDN'T harm the baby

frgsinwntr wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I think the issue is harming the foetus rather than the mother.

Usually happens dude if the baby is in the womb and you punch the mom... conservation of momentum and all...

I am aware of the effects on a foetus when punching a pregnant woman in the womb.

The issue raised in the thread however is that abortion doctors are seen to be harming foetus's by terminating them thus are targetted by the bill.

Phototoxin wrote:
There's a difference between me and a child, me an my brother, you and me, we're all different, what's your point - it's ok to kill/abort/terminate those who are different? The Jews were different...

That's a lame argument. Difference itself is not, and has never been, the exclusive reason for killing others. What's important is how they are different or why they are different.

You can't force an argument from specificity into a reductio ad absurdum.

Phototoxin wrote:
Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person? You are a collection of organs, made of tissues made of cells. Why isn't a fetus a person?

Why can't we abort a fetus if it is a person?

I mean, we kill people all the time. People that don't depend on another being for their non-transferable care and protection.

Phototoxin wrote:
Common sense is sadly not that common and 'consensus' of an arbitrary date isn't fact. Essentially you're saying that science has said: magically overnight after week 23 day 6 hour 23 minute 59 and second 59 the 'clump of cells' becomes a person?
Science does not work that way.

Actually, yeah, it often does. At least in biology many of the barriers of classification are simply accepted by convention, and don't hold up to close philosophical scrutiny; in essence they're used because they're useful. In any case "personhood" isn't a biologically meaningful concept, nor is it really meaningful in a neuroscientific sense. It really is just an arbitrary sort of concept without any firm definition.

corpsesarefun wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I think the issue is harming the foetus rather than the mother.

Usually happens dude if the baby is in the womb and you punch the mom... conservation of momentum and all...

I am aware of the effects on a foetus when punching a pregnant woman in the womb.

The issue raised in the thread however is that abortion doctors are seen to be harming fetus's by terminating them thus are targetted by the bill.

This is the same as a jump as saying people who euthanize prisoners on death row murderers. They are performed LEGALLY.


Also... if you were aware that harming the mom can harm the fetus... I don't understand your first comment...

halonachos wrote:

Looks like someone didn't check the number of posts... it usually goes this way but I've never seen Matty argue with Frazzled before. The OT is changing after all...

When I said "Welcome to dakka OT," the whole thing was in massive sarcasm quotes.

frgsinwntr wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I think the issue is harming the foetus rather than the mother.

Usually happens dude if the baby is in the womb and you punch the mom... conservation of momentum and all...

I am aware of the effects on a foetus when punching a pregnant woman in the womb.

The issue raised in the thread however is that abortion doctors are seen to be harming fetus's by terminating them thus are targetted by the bill.

This is the same as a jump as saying people who euthanize prisoners on death row murderers. They are performed LEGALLY.


Also... if you were aware that harming the mom can harm the fetus... I don't understand your first comment...

I am attempting to tell you that while I don't give a gak who lives and dies whether it be people or foetus the bill WILL target those who practice legal abortions if harming a foetus (IE abortion) is seen as harming a human being. No one gives a flying feth about the mother, the foetus is what is under debate.

That's a lame argument. Difference itself is not, and has never been, the exclusive reason for killing others. What's important is how they are different or why they are different.

You can't force an argument from specificity into a reductio ad absurdum.

You can if it is absurd - such as size or developmental stage.
A fetus is developing child, the same way as a child is a developing teenager. Discrimination on size isn't ethical.

Why can't we abort a fetus if it is a person?

I mean, we kill people all the time. People that don't depend on another being for their non-transferable care and protection.

Do 'we' ? When? Generally? Casually? On-demand, for being 'defective' ? (well some did!) People have the right to life generally - unless the state deems it forfeit for the protection of its citizens (war and executions et cetera) however an unborn child has yet to murder,rape or burgle anyone, let alone invade or commit acts of terrorism!

Essentially its all or nothing - either human life is important and should be preserved and defended (although not at the expense of another's life) or else life is worthless and that if I murder someone tomorrow I shouldn't be prosecuted because we now have the right to kill who we want. Alternatively mothers should just be able to randomly and at will kill their children whenever they want - yet cases of maternal child abuse are seen as particularly horrific, yet maternal infantcide isn't? It's quite a double standard.

No one gives a flying feth about the mother, the foetus is what is under debate.

Mothers who get support, maternity leave and so one - no one cares about them how?

Also if someone aborts their child they are not it's mother since in the view of the pro-abortionist/choice it's not a child. Not a child = not a mother so make up your mind!

Killing a proto-human: bad
Killing an adult human: good

People are blowing the entire thing out of proportion, it doesn't give people the free right to kill abortion specialists.

All it does is guarantee the fact that people who wish to want to protect their pregnant daughter, wife, or sister can do it worry free.

Think about it a little bit. If a woman is willingly getting an abortion then she is an accomplice to harming the fetus as well, for the immediate relative to be 100% in the legal boundaries they would have to kill the woman getting an abortion as well. If they kill just the doctor and not the woman they're being selective in their 'defense' of the fetus, but laws are not selective. You're either in the wrong or in the right you don't get to choose.

This law does not give Joe Extremist the right to kill an abortion specialist nor does it give Abortion Seeking Wanda's spouse/immediate family the right to kill an abortion specialist.

If they were going to get away with legally killing an abortion specialist they would have to 1) Be an immediate relative of the woman getting the abortion, 2) Kill the abortion specialist during the actual abortion, and 3) Kill the mother.

Phototoxin wrote:The Jews were different...

Godwin!

I can totally see why someone would want to kill an abortion doctor. I mean, if someone was going around knifing six year olds because their mom said they didn't want them, everyone would lose their gak.
If someone went and killed that guy, half the country would be calling that dude a hero. I can see where people would think that was basically the same thing. Are they right? I don't think so, but I can understand where they are coming from.
Personally the whole "is a fetus alive" debate has always kinda bored me. As far as I can tell, a good two thirds of the world lack the insight and intellect to be what I consider "alive", so some random kid doesn't matter to me. I think to be officially considered "alive", you should have to pass a series of rigorous philosophical debates, which you can try as often and as early as you'd like, but until you pass you are just another talking animal.

So by doing something legally that someones brother or father doesn't like, they can kill another human being legally. That is just splendid. What other legal things should we allow each other to kill for? Stupid freedoms, who needs them? I say kill em all.

I find fundamentalist Christians and Muslims to be extremely dangerous physically and mentally, to other humans. If someone tries to get my cousin to go to a church should I be able to legally kill them to protect her ability to make rational decisions?

Bromsy wrote:IPersonally the whole "is a fetus alive" debate has always kinda bored me. As far as I can tell, a good two thirds of the world lack the insight and intellect to be what I consider "alive", so some random kid doesn't matter to me. I think to be officially considered "alive", you should have to pass a series of rigorous philosophical debates, which you can try as often and as early as you'd like, but until you pass you are just another talking animal.

That statement means you just failed your own test.

corpsesarefun wrote:
I am attempting to tell you that while I don't give a gak who lives and dies whether it be people or foetus the bill WILL target those who practice legal abortions if harming a foetus (IE abortion) is seen as harming a human being. No one gives a flying feth about the mother, the foetus is what is under debate.

No it won't, some of the pro-choice people are using it to slam a political figure they don't want in office. Go figure they would take something and manipulate it to their cause, good thing Al Gore invented the internet so they could spread their message globally.

dogma wrote:Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person?

So you admit that you kill people on a regular basis?

Melissia wrote:

dogma wrote:Why ISN'T a ball of cell's a person?

So you admit that you kill people on a regular basis?

A sperm consists of just one single cell, therefor its not a person.