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.

Phototoxin wrote:
You believe it does not… which does not make it fact. Factually : on conception a cell displays all of the requirements for life and is its own organism. Indeed it indeed my medical deifiition alive. This has been the case until relatively recently where people, like yourself have attemped to 'redefine' the fetus as not being alive.

People like myself have attempted to redefine the foetus as not being alive?! Give me a fething break.

Absolute bloody hogwash. Do you read all this stuff off a Chick tract?

Pretty much everything you have wrote in this thread has been ridiculous, but somehow that takes the biscuit. I will refrain from posting further and getting the thread locked, go and argue with somebody who more politely tolerates the ravings of the indoctrinated.

Medically its life and distinct life. I'm sorry you have a problem with Matty, but facts are facts. The question at that point then becomes now what? When is it ok for society to wack humans?

Frazzled wrote:When is it ok for society to wack humans?

When their country is sitting on top of a buttload of oil?

sebster wrote:The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.

Absolutely and totally sensible. I just wonder if widespread acceptance of abortion, with little mindfulness that it is social harm, contributes to this goal. There is a lot of criticism from the left targeting mainstream democrats who talk about abortion as a "necessary evil." I don't know that there is a morally credible way to talk about it otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Every time I see "blastula" I picture a vampire with a Plasma Cannon.

Straight up classic!

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:When is it ok for society to wack humans?

When their country is sitting on top of a buttload of oil?

That would be non citizen humans. Easier answer. Actual citizens, more fun for discussion.

SilverMK2 wrote:When their country is sitting on top of a buttload of oil?

I suppose this explains the 100-year war between the US and Canada.

Not surprisingly, it does explain most of the wars throughout history (replace oil with some other resource). Its only starting in the late 20th century that one country invaded another without the aim of strategic conquest.

On another unrelated note, what is with the Sarah Palin bogey(wo)man-ism?

Er, she's a fething moron?

Albatross wrote:Er, she's a fething moron?

Vs. every other politician on the planet?

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Er, she's a fething moron?

Vs. every other politician on the planet?

Yes, even compared to them.

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:When is it ok for society to wack humans?

When their country is sitting on top of a buttload of oil?

That would be non citizen humans. Easier answer. Actual citizens, more fun for discussion.

You don't become a US citizen until birth. (14th Amendment.)

Thats why Palins name comes up mate, because she says this gak and she is roundly mocked by every educated person in the world who isnt a bible thumper from somewhere in America.

Someone with her identical beliefs can come on here and basically say much worse than she has every come out with, basically say "everyone who disagrees with me wants to shoot disabled people in the head" "lets nuke the world then lol" or "you all just want an excuse to murder people LOLZ!" and we have to sit and tolerate it.

What is the difference between her nonsense views and that of my mate here? Why can I acceptably mock the former and not the latter?

Frazz, you know shes a fething idiot, you just dont want to admit it because your quite clearly and obviously a staunch Republican mate! I mean, I can fully understand that, but honestly.. she clearly is an idiot, even regards to other politicians and you know it. I have to say that even though i have a scornful attitude towards them in general (politicians), I dont believe that most of them are stupid, but that bitch is clearly in need of a brain transplant.

Incidentally, I also take umbrage with the term pro-life. They use the term to try and discredit people that disagree with them (or non Christians generally). You know, that if you think that women should have the right to choose you are anti-life? Its all a grand nonsense perpetuated by my eternal foes.

And how the hell can you be pro life and pro gun!? Isnt that an oxymoron!?

And how the hell can you be pro life and pro gun!? Isnt that an oxymoron!?

I hope you can use drinking as an excuse for this.

No, I'm not leathered, but I'm not being serious obviously. I'm well aware of the meaning behind the two terms.

Unless this is some English language slip up, then that may well be, I'm a commando not a professor pf linguistics.. I just remember an officer once telling me that "friendly fire" is a paradoxical oxymoron, so what's wrong with mine if you take it at face value?

I'm having trouble figuring out what kind of answer you're expecting.

Ok.

Ill just leave this with you.

/still confused

Me too... Im off to the gym!

Manchu wrote:

sebster wrote:The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.

Absolutely and totally sensible. I just wonder if widespread acceptance of abortion, with little mindfulness that it is social harm, contributes to this goal.

What about the social harm from having no abortion and no birth control?

Phototoxin wrote:
Well what *is* the issue? This is typical of an abortion debate as essentially many terms get to be re-defined. So the fetus is a person – but then you don’t care. But yet magically this doesn’t correlate to adult people. Killing unborn people is ok … just because? So if that is the case killing adult people should be ok just because it is. Or because you believe it is?

Its not a matter of redefinition in most cases, but a fundamentally distinct usage of a set of particular words. This is especially evident with personhood as its an incredibly nebulous concept to begin with; lacking any clear technical meaning outside a very specific set of contexts.

Anyway, the point is that simply saying "its a person." is only relevant if you believe that its unacceptable to kill people. Lots of people believe that, in general, that is the case but many of those same people also believe that there are certain conditions in which it is acceptable to kill a person. Given this, there's no reason to presume that possessing the status of a fetus is not acceptable grounds to justify killing.

I don't know where you're getting this "just because" nonsense though. It isn't arbitrary any more than the general prohibition of killing people is.

Phototoxin wrote:
It's obfuscation. I don't *want* to say that 'personhood' (a non-term essentially') starts at conception. I'm telling you, factually, indisputably, that unique human life is created at conception. It is very small and immature but it is human life, and according to the laws of our societies no one has the right to end another humans life (unless it would save another persons life and even then there are issues). All abortion does is kill a small child. Anything else about trimester, brain function et cetera is simply obfuscation of the issue with an attempted veneer of legitimacy based on the child's size.

No, it kills a fetus. A fetus is not a child anymore than a child is an adult. If you want to accuse others of obfuscating an issue, then you should be particularly careful to avoid doing so yourself. Similarly, it would be best to avoid generalizing matters of brain function and trimester as simple issues of size, that is plainly not the case. If it were, then the conversation would be one of something like mass, or length, and that is plainly not the case.

Phototoxin wrote:
To enable abortion to be legitimate you would need to explain when is it ever permissible to kill a human. The only reason I can think of is : defense of anothers life (such as a pregnant mother with cancer who needs chemotherapy, or shooting an axe wielding maniac running at people)

Its permissible for a mother, by direct action or the permitted action of another, to take a human life when the human is in the fetal stage. This is acceptable because the human in question is uniquely dependent upon the mother for its own life, and so the mother is given a unique authority over the life of the fetus. Were pregnancy transferable, this authority would essentially cease to exist (barring matters of economic necessity), but until that day mothers have authority over the fetus due to the particular burden it impresses upon them. This exception to the general right to life, such as it is, follows from the absence of the right to be cared for.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:When is it ok for society to wack humans?

When their country is sitting on top of a buttload of oil?

That would be non citizen humans. Easier answer. Actual citizens, more fun for discussion.

You don't become a US citizen until birth. (14th Amendment.)

To rephrase, when it is acceptable for a society to wack its own members, not dern ferreners spoiling the view of Venus with their messy old Earth?

SilverMK2 wrote:

dogma wrote:the abortion debate is so juvenile.

No pun intended?

I didn't even realize it until now.

mattyrm wrote:


Thats why Palins name comes up mate, because she says this gak and she is roundly mocked by every educated person in the world who isnt a bible thumper from somewhere in America.

Someone with her identical beliefs can come on here and basically say much worse than she has every come out with, basically say "everyone who disagrees with me wants to shoot disabled people in the head" "lets nuke the world then lol" or "you all just want an excuse to murder people LOLZ!" and we have to sit and tolerate it.

What is the difference between her nonsense views and that of my mate here? Why can I acceptably mock the former and not the latter?

Frazz, you know shes a fething idiot, you just dont want to admit it because your quite clearly and obviously a staunch Republican mate! I mean, I can fully understand that, but honestly.. she clearly is an idiot, even regards to other politicians and you know it. I have to say that even though i have a scornful attitude towards them in general (politicians), I dont believe that most of them are stupid, but that bitch is clearly in need of a brain transplant.

Incidentally, I also take umbrage with the term pro-life. They use the term to try and discredit people that disagree with them (or non Christians generally). You know, that if you think that women should have the right to choose you are anti-life? Its all a grand nonsense perpetuated by my eternal foes.

And how the hell can you be pro life and pro gun!? Isnt that an oxymoron!?

How can someone be pro death and anti gun?

How can you be a douchenozzel and a dorkamorka at the same time? OH MY [deity name here] THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS!

Jokes aside...

Pretty much any position, no matter how logically inconsistent it seems on the outset, can be explained through some complicated reasoning and logic.

Or just by ignoring stuff that disagrees with an opinion.

Well yeah, but I was talking about the opinions of people who I actually would bother to pretend to care about, not random douchebag on the street ranting about how Obama stole his car and set his house on fire.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:

sebster wrote:The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.

Absolutely and totally sensible. I just wonder if widespread acceptance of abortion, with little mindfulness that it is social harm, contributes to this goal.

What about the social harm from having no abortion and no birth control?

"Irrelevant." I got to use it again! I see why you like it so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:How can someone be pro death and anti gun?

I guess gun violence is not gruesome enough for some.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:

sebster wrote:The answer is in getting people to value human diversity, and love the person, not love the list of most desirable attributes.

Absolutely and totally sensible. I just wonder if widespread acceptance of abortion, with little mindfulness that it is social harm, contributes to this goal.

What about the social harm from having no abortion and no birth control?

"Irrelevant." I got to use it again! I see why you like it so much.

It doesn't work unless you explain why.

Regardless, you are wrong; overpopulation is definitely relevant to human society, having a large effect on all strata of society.

It is permissable for a mother to take a human life when the human is in the fetal stage whether or not abortion is legal. I have heard of women inducing wheir own miscarriages for reasons they don't have to explain to me or anyone else. I guess we could toss every pregnant woman who has a cigarette or a glass of wine, or eats anything that strays from a straight-and-narrow health diet, or crosses the street without a crosswalk... in jail for attempted murder!

Melissia wrote:It doesn't work unless you explain why.

Doesn't seem to get me very far but here we go. I was not saying we need to get rid of all abortion and birth control or even that these things need to be limited further. So your point in response was utterly irrelevant. The point I made was that an uncritical approach to abortion politics premised on "more rights = more social justice," which is a real opinion that more than a few people hold, is flawed to the point of being morally reprehensible. It does not in any way contribute to the sensible conclusion that sebster posted and, in my opinion, it works directly against that insight.

No, it kills a fetus. A fetus is not a child anymore than a child is an adult. If you want to accuse others of obfuscating an issue, then you should be particularly careful to avoid doing so yourself. Similarly, it would be best to avoid generalizing matters of brain function and trimester as simple issues of size, that is plainly not the case. If it were, then the conversation would be one of something like mass, or length, and that is plainly not the case.

Well what is the case? – you’ve still not given a clear definition. Why is 24 weeks a bad time to kill a fetus but 13 is not? Waht about 14,15,16 weeks? 2days? 8 days? 75 days? It’s illegal to kill both a 24 week old baby and a 13 week old baby but not when its in the womb - why? Enlighten me.

Its permissible for a mother, by direct action or the permitted action of another, to take a human life when the human is in the fetal stage. This is acceptable because the human in question is uniquely dependent upon the mother for its own life, and so the mother is given a unique authority over the life of the fetus.

Who gives her the ‘unique authortiy’? – she has a unique RESPONSIBILITY, but not authortity. Parents are responsible for their children, they do not have roman-era type authorthty to kill (or sell them as was also possible then then)

If an adult has motor neuron disease and has no way of communication and a person is their designated carer, the patient is uniquely dependent on their carer. By your logic the carer has a unique authority and so should be able to kill the adult.

Were pregnancy transferable, this authority would essentially cease to exist (barring matters of economic necessity), but until that day mothers have authority over the fetus due to the particular burden it impresses upon them. This exception to the general right to life, such as it is, follows from the absence of the right to be cared for.

So what you’re saying is that the mother can choose to kill her own child because she doesn’t want to care for it. Hence if i have an 8 year old child and he becomes tedious I will just shoot him, since clearly I have the right not to care for him.