Abortion

[Aileron]

Ducky, murder of an animal is indeed wrong if the animal is someday going to metamorphisise into a human being. However, all known animals don't, so hence the difference.

 

 

Monte, I only intended that as a weak analogy. The point is that if something has a right to life, that right supercedes the right to choice of somebody else. Its wrong to choose to end someone else's life.

 

 

I'm saying the fetus has a right to life not from current personhood, but by future personhood. That is because future personhood is the only thing taken away from the victim in murder.

 

 

As for making mistakes, I agree that mistakes should be forgiven to an extent, but no one has the right to take a third person's life to cover for their own mistakes.

[»i88gerbils]

Your arguments are all in jumbles Aileron. You may want to start reading back through your own posts & clarifying your position as it is wandering. The definitions you use change like the wind.

 

Example: It hurts your argument to say it is okay for humans to murder animals (as well as make you look like a moron).

 

 

 

N.B.: Intending this as helpful insight, not in an argumentative tone.

[Dr.Worthless]

Saying you are contradicting yourself by saying its ok to kill animals and not ok to kill humans is !@#$%^&*anine and is only a "yeah well what about this" arguement by pro-choicers.

 

Bottom line is its not ok to kill another human being, steer the arguement back to the core of the difference, that being my belief that a human is a human at the point of conception, and your belief that humans are a sack of cells until we become self aware. (Which is rediculous in my opinion, as if the some fetus's do not become self aware...)

 

 

What if the condom breaks? Should everyone stop having premarital sex? If that happened, I don't know what I would do...probably !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inate someone.

Seriously.. if you aren't willing to actually be responsible for a child, don't take risks that could potentially bring one into this world. Abortion should not be your "oops I made a mistake" catch all card. Its not even a premarital sex question, its a sex question. I don't care if you've been married for 30 years and are a 45 year old virgin, if you aren't willing to bring a child into this world and be responsible for its upbringing, you better !@#$%^&* well buy fresh condoms, make sure the chick is on the pill, spray contraceptive foam up inside of her before you get busy, etc.

 

A 5yo is no more or less sentient than an adult. Murder is murder. Murder is "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being". Zygotes and embryos are not sentient and destroying them is not murder.

 

No where in the definition you provided does the word "sentient" appear. Thats a stipulation you throw in so the definition cannot be applied to embryos.

 

If am embryo isn't a human, what is it? A human embryo can be nothing other than human, by design. You can argue "well on X day its just a collection of cells", however that collection of cells cannot be anything other than human, given its development. You can say you are killing a collection of cells, but you are killing a human being, the cells cannot be anything else but. Justifying ending the life because it is not yet sentient is not only ignorant, but appauling.

 

"It doesn't realize we're killing it, so I guess it's ok..." /boggle.

 

In my opinion, Abortion should be for cases of rape and cases where the mothers life is in jeapordy. Anything else is really just birth control. Furthermore, if Abortions are kept as is, women should be required to have the written concent of the father of the child, if the father isn't available (ran off, etc) it can be the womans choice.

[MonteZuma]

Bottom line is its not ok to kill another human being

In some cultures it is ok to kill human beings - the death penalty for example. I guess we can also include switching off hospital equipment for people that are brain dead or otherwise beyond help. An extreme example are honour killings. Human life is not always considered sacrosanct.

 

steer the arguement back to the core of the difference, that being my belief that a human is a human at the point of conception, and your belief that humans are a sack of cells until we become self aware. (Which is rediculous in my opinion, as if the some fetus's do not become self aware...)

Self-awareness is not the only criterion that I would use to decide whether or not an abortion should be allowed.

 

No where in the definition you provided does the word "sentient" appear.

Aileron claimed that a 5yo was less sentient than his/her aunt. I pointed out that they were equally sentient. A zygote or embryo on the other hand is not sentient. Sentience is a fundamental difference between a zygote/embryo and a child/adult.

 

Thats a stipulation you throw in so the definition cannot be applied to embryos.

The relevant part of the definition is the word unlawful. Terminating a pregnancy by having an abortion is not unlawful. Therefore abortion is not murder. It doesn't matter if you consider the embryo to be a human being or not.

 

If am embryo isn't a human, what is it? A human embryo can be nothing other than human, by design.

My foreskin was nothing other than human. My sperm is nothing other than human.

 

You can argue "well on X day its just a collection of cells", however that collection of cells cannot be anything other than human, given its development. You can say you are killing a collection of cells, but you are killing a human being, the cells cannot be anything else but.

These are all debatable philosophical points that will probably never be resolved. In past times, life wasn't considered to begin until the quickening (when the baby kicks). My personal view is that human life becomes sacred with sentience.

 

Justifying ending the life because it is not yet sentient is not only ignorant, but appauling.

Justifying abortion because an embryo is not sentient is not a demostration of ignorance. Most people probably would agree that abortion is appalling (most medical procedures are), but so is an unwanted pregnancy.

 

"It doesn't realize we're killing it, so I guess it's ok..." /boggle.

An embryo doesn't realise anything at all. Its is mindless - literally.

 

... if Abortions are kept as is, women should be required to have the written concent of the father of the child, if the father isn't available (ran off, etc) it can be the womans choice.

As much as I like the idea of a father being able to look after the child if the mother doesn't want it, I think this idea raises other moral and ethical issues. Ultimately it is the woman's body and it should be her choice.

[»i88gerbils]

[Edit because Aileron burned my book so to speak]

 

At this point in the discussion Dr. Worthless completely ignores my post which was intended at helping the anti-abortion side of the argument.

 

[/Edit]

 

Edited November 3, 2005 by Aileron

[Dr.Worthless]

Sorry gerbils, I wasn't aware this was the preschool messageboard, I'll go over to where the big people hold discussions instead of pointing out I said "kill" when you said "murder" (rollseyes)

 

In some cultures it is ok to kill human beings - the death penalty for example. I guess we can also include switching off hospital equipment for people that are brain dead or otherwise beyond help. An extreme example are honour killings. Human life is not always considered sacrosanct.

Ok.. are you trying to say the Culture of america would be for or against abortion? If you want to make decisions based on culture, who's culture do we use as a measuring stick?

 

The relevant part of the definition is the word unlawful. Terminating a pregnancy by having an abortion is not unlawful. Therefore abortion is not murder. It doesn't matter if you consider the embryo to be a human being or not.

 

Sorry, next time i'll make it a verb and can use it in context of ending a life, no matter lawfully or unlawfully.

 

"Having an abortion is murdering a child"

 

Better?

 

My foreskin was nothing other than human. My sperm is nothing other than human.

Your foreskin can be nothing other than foreskin... Your foreskin doesn't develop into something, an embryo does. Like I said, playing little games is great but the core arguement goes back to your view of an embryo as a sack of cells, and my view of an embryo as being human.

 

These are all debatable philosophical points that will probably never be resolved. In past times, life wasn't considered to begin until the quickening (when the baby kicks). My personal view is that human life becomes sacred with sentience.

 

They also thought the earth was flat in past times, "past times" isn't a very good reference in any discussion.

 

I'm still baffled with your requirement of sentience to be determined human. Is it possible for a human to not be sentient. The second the collection of cells thats formed by the combination of a human sperm and a human egg comes into existant, those cells are a human being, they do not have the potential to be anything else. This is one of those issues that I think its literally impossible to understand opposite viewpoints, cause I'm trying very hard to understand yours and I'm drawing a blank.

 

Justifying abortion because an embryo is not sentient is not a demostration of ignorance. Most people probably would agree that abortion is appalling (most medical procedures are), but so is an unwanted pregnancy.

Moreso than not existing at all? I don't get it.

 

As much as I like the idea of a father being able to look after the child if the mother doesn't want it, I think this idea raises other moral and ethical issues. Ultimately it is the woman's body and it should be her choice.

 

Its the fathers sperm. Why are fathers rights non existant until the childs born? On the flip-side, why shouldn't a man have the right to require his babies mother to have an abortion, or the ability to wave his obligation to child support? After all, if the father is not capable to pay child support, or take care of the child, couldn't the same arguement be aplied?

[»i88gerbils]

It's an important distinction. Especially when I'm trying to help out the anti-abortion side.

 

Sentience is important because flesh by itself does not make a human being. It is of particular importance to both the anti-abortion and pro-abortion argument since sentience begins either at conception (i.e. through supernatural means) or at birth whereupon it would be "murder" to kill a sentient being. Murder is against the law as well as against most ethical moralities. If a being is non-sentient it is not considered "murder", and therefore it doesn't go against the majority of moralities & law.

 

If it is considered "murder" to kill an unborn child, but not considered "murder" to kill an unborn child as a product of rape, then that really is pretty hyprocritical. If the whole argument is about the right of a being's future even though that being hasn't fully developed to the point of surviving on their own, then any unborn child would carry such rights no matter the cir!@#$%^&*stance. Since it really is not murder to kill an unborn child the mother, with the acknowledgment of what they are actually doing, should be given the choice since it IS in their womb after all.

 

One thing that many people forget is that when many women have abortions they are not "cold-blooded killers". Instead we must recognize that a "prelife" existed and perhaps even try to atone for not being able to bring it into the World. I speak none other than various religious or spiritual rituals to pray for the unborn child. There are several Japanese shrines embodying the spirit of the unborn. In my opinion neither woman nor man who is involved in an abortion should forget that it had occurred, but they should also need feel no regret.

 

[Edit by i88gerbils because Aileron burns books]

At this point in the discussion I am still trying to help out Dr. Wotrhless & guide the discussion back towards abortion and away from his petty insults.

[/Edit]

[MonteZuma]

.. are you trying to say the Culture of america would be for or against abortion? If you want to make decisions based on culture, who's culture do we use as a measuring stick?

Given that 43% of women in the US will have an abortion in their lifetime, I'd suggest that a large part of America does support abortion - possibly even a majority.

 

"Having an abortion is murdering a child"

 

Better?

Not really. It isn't murder because it isn't unlawful (whether or not it is a verb). I also don't think that it is correct to call an embryo a 'child', but I guess that is open to interpretation.

 

...the core arguement goes back to your view of an embryo as a sack of cells, and my view of an embryo as being human.

I don't think that it is necessarilly wrong to describe an embryo or a zygote as a 'human'. But the core of this issue is whether or not it is ok to have abortions. Any judgment that is made on that score should be based on moral and ethical considerations that transcend dictionary definitions.

 

These are all debatable philosophical points that will probably never be resolved. In past times, life wasn't considered to begin until the quickening (when the baby kicks). My personal view is that human life becomes sacred with sentience.

They also thought the earth was flat in past times, "past times" isn't a very good reference in any discussion.

I believe that it is very useful to look at past times when considering important ethical issues like this. Past times shaped society's moral code.

 

I'm still baffled with your requirement of sentience to be determined human.

I believe that an embro does not have any rights.

 

Is it possible for a human to not be sentient.

I believe that zygotes and embryos (at least in the early stages of development) are not sentient. Yes I think that is possible and can be proven. We could argue whether or not a zygote/embryo has a soul, but that would be a purely religious debate that cannot be proven nor disproven.

 

The second the collection of cells thats formed by the combination of a human sperm and a human egg comes into existant, those cells are a human being, they do not have the potential to be anything else.

OK. I think it is time that we all had a discussion about the birds and the bees:

 

When a sperm cell fertilises an ovum it becomes a zygote (by your definition, this is a human being). Well...unfortunately, most zygotes (human beings?), do not succesfully implant themselves in the womb. Most end up embedded in sanitary towels or tampons and end up flushed down the toilet or sent to landfill. Supposing this doesn't happen, it will take up to 14 days for a zygote (now a blastocyst) to attach itself to the uterine wall. Of those that do attach, 25% will eventually be lost through miscarriage (often the women will not even know she was pregnant). Others will be lost through accidental abortions.

 

What this tells us is that, at least as far as mother nature is concerned, fertilised ovum just aren't that special. Most of them do not become people.

 

I could complicate things by alerting you to the fact that it can take up to 14 days for a zygote/blastocyst to split into 2 to form a twin (or even later to form a conjoined twin). Every zygote has the potential to form a twin. So given that you believe that a human being is created at the time of fertilisation, this must mean that twins are one human being with two bodies and conjoined twins are one human being period?

 

I'd argue that it takes a little more than fertilisation to become a 'being'.

 

This is one of those issues that I think its literally impossible to understand opposite viewpoints, cause I'm trying very hard to understand yours and I'm drawing a blank.

Did my birds and bees talk help?

 

Moreso than not existing at all? I don't get it.

Is it appalling that a thing that never knew it existed doesn't end up existing? Do you mourn for all of the zygotes that get flushed down the toilet without anybody at all knowing that they existed?

[Dr.Worthless]

Given that 43% of women in the US will have an abortion in their lifetime, I'd suggest that a large part of America does support abortion - possibly even a majority.

Perhaps, I wanted you to clarify your statement.

 

Not really. It isn't murder because it isn't unlawful (whether or not it is a verb). I also don't think that it is correct to call an embryo a 'child', but I guess that is open to interpretation.

 

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders

v. tr.

 

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.

5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

 

Its context of a verb or a noun does matter. Mabye its you who needs a few lessons? (in reference to below)

 

OK. I think it is time that we all had a discussion about the birds and the bees:

 

When a sperm cell fertilises an ovum it becomes a zygote (by your definition, this is a human being). Well...unfortunately, most zygotes (human beings?), do not succesfully implant themselves in the womb. Most end up embedded in sanitary towels or tampons and end up flushed down the toilet or sent to landfill. Supposing this doesn't happen, it will take up to 14 days for a zygote (now a blastocyst) to attach itself to the uterine wall. Of those that do attach, 25% will eventually be lost through miscarriage (often the women will not even know she was pregnant). Others will be lost through accidental abortions.

First of all, I could list my academic accomplishments if you like, but lets take the easy route and assume that I don't need to be walked through anything unless I say.

 

Secondly, you're not catching my arguement. When a human male and a human female have sex and create a zygote (and its future development) that creation cannot be anything other than human. Its development isn't a dice roll, and the mother isn't going to give birth to anything other than a human baby, so why is it we do not classify the creation as human, if its the only thing it can develop into?

 

Lastly, why are you we discussing natural abortions? We cannot control if a zygote will attach itself to to the uterise and begin to grow. Again, lets focus the topic on abortion, if I need a lesson from you rest !@#$%^&*ured i'll ask for it.

 

What this tells us is that, at least as far as mother nature is concerned, fertilised ovum just aren't that special. Most of them do not become people.

 

Ok, and?

 

I could complicate things by alerting you to the fact that it can take up to 14 days for a zygote/blastocyst to split into 2 to form a twin (or even later to form a conjoined twin). Every zygote has the potential to form a twin. So given that you believe that a human being is created at the time of fertilisation, this must mean that twins are one human being with two bodies and conjoined twins are one human being period?

You aren't complicating anything, you're just making an !@#$%^&* out of yourself. The key word is "split".. by definition if you "split" one object, you then have 2. Wowza...

 

s it appalling that a thing that never knew it existed doesn't end up existing? Do you mourn for all of the zygotes that get flushed down the toilet without anybody at all knowing that they existed?

 

We're not discussing zygotes that didn't attach themselves, we're discussing one that DID and OTHERS then killed them. Why do you insist on swaying from the core arguement?

 

Hey look at me!!, I can make arguement circular, if you bring up a point that I care not to discuss I'll try and belittle your arguement by making you look stupid, or bringing up another topic completely!

 

I wondered why I took a break from the forums, thanks for reminding me =).

[»i88gerbils]

Then why did you discuss it? Only discuss that which needs to be discussed. The only thing that needed to be said was this, "It is my understanding that Zygotes that do not attach themselves onto the uteran wall are not human and here is why". Then you can explain why a Zygote that doesn't attach itself is not human, which you haven't done so without calling a Zygote that did attach itself human (Unless you mean by a supernatural distinction which you haven't stated). You don't need to quote his whole post either since his post is right above yours.

 

Therefore from the above post I can get te following:

 

a) I don't want to discuss the issue you brought up so I will belittle you for it without even making some good points about it.

 

Quoted a definition and didn't explain why the definition used before was different because it was not.

 

c) Ugly use of quoting. Poster doesn't know how to use quotations like any normal writer (this is an insult to many people, not just one).

 

We'll just continue editing your posts until you can post in a manner, in which an actual discussion on abortion can take place. Or the argument in favor of abortions (regulated or not) will be the end result of the discussion no matter how much bull!@#$%^&* you spew.

 

[Edit by i88gerbils, Aileron burns books]

Tried to explain to Dr. Worthless how to improve his posts & how to actually participate in a discussion. As usual, he is ignoring what I have typed.

[/Edit]

 

Edited November 3, 2005 by Aileron

[MonteZuma]

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders

v. tr.

 

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.

5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

 

Its context of a verb or a noun does matter.

Which of those definitions do you think applies to abortion?

 

-edit- Ah. I just noticed that you were referring to definition 3. I think you are using this definition out of context. It may be correct, on a hot day for example, to say "I'm so thirsty I could murder a cold beer". But that doesn't mean that it applies to everything that you can 'put an end to'. We wouldn't say that you murdured your dog if you took it to the vet and had it put down. We don't say that a prisoner is 'murdered' when he is sent to the electric chair. This murder debate is a red herring. -/edit-

 

First of all, I could list my academic accomplishments if you like, but lets take the easy route and assume that I don't need to be walked through anything unless I say.

We could all list our academic accomplishments, but I don't think anybody cares? I think that in ethical debates, academic accomplishments don't mean much.

 

Secondly, you're not catching my arguement. When a human male and a human female have sex and create a zygote (and its future development) that creation cannot be anything other than human. Its development isn't a dice roll, and the mother isn't going to give birth to anything other than a human baby, so why is it we do not classify the creation as human, if its the only thing it can develop into?

I don't have a problem with you choosing to call a zygote 'human'. Sperm is human. But the development of a zygote is definitely a 'dice roll'. A zygote could become a human. Or it could become 2 or more humans. Or more than likely it will become a stain on a sanitary towel.

 

if I need a lesson from you rest !@#$%^&*ured i'll ask for it.

I'm not convinced.

 

What this tells us is that, at least as far as mother nature is concerned, fertilised ovum just aren't that special. Most of them do not become people.

 

Ok, and?

Whether or not zygotes, morulas, blasotcysts, embryos or fetuses are 'special' is at the core of this debate.

 

You aren't complicating anything, you're just making an !@#$%^&* out of yourself. The key word is "split".. by definition if you "split" one object, you then have 2. Wowza...

Twins demonstrate that what you have up until the point of the split (and in my opinion for sometime after) is an organised collection of human cells - not a single human being.

 

We're not discussing zygotes that didn't attach themselves, we're discussing one that DID and OTHERS then killed them. Why do you insist on swaying from the core arguement?

The argument has not swayed at all. You have stated that "the second the collection of cells thats formed by the combination of a human sperm and a human egg comes into existant, those cells are a human being" and that the "bottom line is its not ok to kill another human being". That must mean that you are opposed to the use of the morning after pill. One thing that the morning after pill does is stop the "collection of cells thats formed by the combination of a human sperm and a human egg" from attaching to the uterus. Therefore in your view the morning after pill is used to kill a human being. Zygotes are as relevant to this debate as morulas, blasotcysts, embryos or fetuses.

 

The start of life (or the start of 'being' or 'individuality' - whatever you want to call it), is one of the issues that is key to the debate about abortion.

 

Hey look at me!!, I can make arguement circular, if you bring up a point that I care not to discuss I'll try and belittle your arguement by making you look stupid, or bringing up another topic completely!

We are still having fun aren't we?

 

I wondered why I took a break from the forums, thanks for reminding me =).

Awwww. Maybe not.

[Dr.Worthless]

then why did you discuss it? Moron lesson #2: Only discuss that which needs to be discussed. The only thing that needed to be said was this, "It is my understanding that Zygotes that do not attach themselves onto the uteran wall are not human and here is why". Then you can explain why a Zygote that doesn't attach itself is not human, which you haven't done so without calling a Zygote that did attach itself human (Unless you mean by a supernatural distinction which you haven't stated). You don't need to quote his whole post either since his post is right above yours.

I'l do whatever I please, you do not control the forums and you sure as !@#$%^&* don't control how I use quotation marks, if you don't like how I do it, tough !@#$%^&*.

 

"Moron lesson#3" You are not the internet policeman.

 

a) I don't want to discuss the issue you brought up so I will belittle you for it without even making some good points about it.

 

Examples please.

 

Quoted a definition and didn't explain why the definition used before was different because it was not.

If you use Murder as a noun, you get this.

 

mur·der Audio pronunciation of "murder" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)

n.

 

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

If you use it as a verb, you get this.

 

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders

v. tr.

 

1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.

2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.

3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.

4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.

5. Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

 

 

This was my attempt to get you away from the law definition (where as something has to be human for you to murder it) and into the usage of the word (where as I'm justified in using murdered, as it can mean "to put an end to")

 

I recognize that in terms of law I cannot use the word "murder", because the core arguement is if an unborn child is human or not. In terms of the English Language, I can.

 

c) Ugly use of quoting. Poster doesn't know how to use quotations like any normal writer (this is an insult to many people, not just one).

 

I do not use quoting to appeal to your visual preferences, nor do I even consider your preferences when I type a post.

 

Infact. Lets quote your whole post here just for ASSS and giggles.

 

Then why did you discuss it? Moron lesson #2: Only discuss that which needs to be discussed. The only thing that needed to be said was this, "It is my understanding that Zygotes that do not attach themselves onto the uteran wall are not human and here is why". Then you can explain why a Zygote that doesn't attach itself is not human, which you haven't done so without calling a Zygote that did attach itself human (Unless you mean by a supernatural distinction which you haven't stated). You don't need to quote his whole post either since his post is right above yours.

 

Therefore from the above post I can get te following:

 

a) I don't want to discuss the issue you brought up so I will belittle you for it without even making some good points about it.

Furthermore, for visual annoyance, lets imbed a quote here.

Quoted a definition and didn't explain why the definition used before was different because it was not.

 

c) Ugly use of quoting. Poster doesn't know how to use quotations like any normal writer (this is an insult to many people, not just one).

and here.

We'll just continue editing your posts until you can post in a manner, in which an actual discussion on abortion can take place. Or the argument in favor of abortions (regulated or not) will be the end result of the discussion no matter how much bull!@#$%^&* you spew.

 

If you don't like my use of quotes, please fill out the "go !@#$%^&* yourself" form, and e-mail it to shut-the-!@#$%^&*-up@reduceinternetpoliceman.org, or if you prefer mail the form to

 

Worthless Headquarters

P.O Box 323345253523445

Shove it up your !@#$%^&*, AR 77584

 

I'll carefully consider your complaint, while digesting some cherry flavor laxitive. Once the magical liquid takes effect, I will fill out the reply section of the form and promptly mail it back to you.

 

Or the argument in favor of abortions (regulated or not) will be the end result of the discussion no matter how much bull!@#$%^&* you spew.

I would expect nothing less from SS forums, where Worthless continues to be the vocal minority!

 

We are still having fun aren't we?

 

Absolutly!

 

[Aileron]

We'll just continue editing your posts until you can post in a manner, in which an actual discussion on abortion can take place. Or the argument in favor of abortions (regulated or not) will be the end result of the discussion no matter how much bull!@#$%^&* you spew.

 

ROFL!!!

 

Wait, so I should edit Worthless' posts because the quotes he is making is "ugly", but should allow you to call him names like a five year old? Of the two of you, he was the one actually discussing abortion!

 

All of i88gerbils' demeaning and childish comments have been edited.

 

Worthless, I also had to edit your last post, though I kept it light and do understand that your patience ran out. I'll leave some of the stuff I would normally edit out. You were in a position where you had to respond like that, and responsability rests on i88gerbils for starting the fight and myself for not catching it in time.

[»i88gerbils]

[Edit because Aileron is a book burner]

 

Why does Aileron feel it necessary to hide truth? I have not made a post that was intended to harm or insult that was not based on factual information collected in this thread. Editing posts is rash behavior similar to other censors. What I mean when I said "edit" before was simply to correct & help someone who obviously does not know how to make a forum post. Your failure to see that he was contributing little to the discussion after being offended makes me believe you are unfit to be a moderator in these forums.

 

Censorship is ugly. It is necessary to show Dr. Worthless what he needs to learn in order to participate in the discussion. Otherwise his worthless trite will continue (no pun intended).

 

[/Edit]

 

Edited November 3, 2005 by Aileron

[Aileron]

Its clear a zygote is human, the only one who mentioned animals is Ducky, who frankly never takes the time to understand an opponant's position and loves his straw man arguements.

 

While a zygote is a dice roll, so is life in general. We all agree murder is wrong.

 

As I keep claiming, murder is wrong because the victim has a future life of personhood. That may not ALWAYS be the case in reality. The victim could have been fated to get run over by a bus a few seconds after somebody murdered him. However, its still murder, even if the probably of the victim getting run over by the bus is as high as a zygote not attaching.

 

A zygote has a future life. While this future isn't certain, no future of life is ever certain and therefore certainty of life is not a requirement for murder. Thus abortion takes away from the zygote just as much as murder takes from an adult.

[»i88gerbils]

Ah finally someone who can at the very least participate in a discussion...

 

I agree that a Murder charge is because someone has denied another's right of existence under the Law. Unfortunately we cannot just classify "denying someone's existence" only to Murder. Killing in people in War (although consentual), Manslaughter, a fetus conceived thru rape, moving someone off of life support, etc ... are all denying existence of some kind.

 

What requirements are necessary to make a decision over someone's life? Several moralities insist that this decision rests in God's hands though they usually also act as if they had the hand of God. Moralities that give more freedom (and responsibilty) give the State that decision (e.g. War). This last one is also part of the same justification people take in [presumed] self-defense of their lives, which also applies to those agreed uses of abortion.

 

Should a decision to take someone's life be made over something as trivial natural resources like oil? Rhetorical question. Or as trivial as not having unprotected sex?

 

If a woman judges (hopefully with the advice of others) that neither she nor a father-to-be are in the condition to support a pregnancy or a child, should we respect that judgement? Are they murderers (or guilty of manslaughter) if they let go of a zygote or fetus from the woman's body? That is the most optimistic situation I can come up with. Now what about the woman and her partner(s) who do not think twice about protected sex, has had multiple abortions, etc ...? Would it be considered murder for this woman to not consider the consequences of their actions?

 

When we end anything's life we are taking away its future (if it had a future). When is it Murder and when is it not?*

 

---

*Note: I do not want to weed thru manslaugther vs murder case reports as they are both crimes. Let's settle for unlawful vs lawful.

 

N.B.: Apologies to Montezuma for getting off-topic with his point about sentience, but I'm not sure that point will lead to anywhere productive.

 

N.B.2: Compare this post to Dr. Worthless' and there's no comparison at all. Yet another example of trying to help him & this discussion out.

[Aileron]

"Censorship" my !@#$%^&*. The one rule everyone here agrees upon is that one shouldn't call people names or be disrespectfull of other posters. You weren't discussing abortion, you were calling Dr. Worthless names.

 

"So and So is a moron" and "So and So is ignorant" does not qualify as truth. Manuevering one's arguement away from the direct fire lanes an one's opponant doesn't cons!@#$%^&*ute ignoring somebody's post.

 

If I was a "bookburner", I'd be editing Montezuma's posts...he's the one presenting the intelligent left-wing arguements. I was still careful to leave all of the political and logical meat intact to your posts. If your arguement held up before, it held up afterwards...(except in the two posts where there was no arguement).

 

You are right, there is no comparison between Worthless' posts an yours...he doesn't have to resort to namecalling to get his point accrossed. I don't agree with the logic he uses to arrive at his conclusion at all (I agree with the conclusion, but not how he supports it.) However, what is important here is that his logic is not dependant upon his opponant being "ignorant" or "a moron".

 

 

I think this line sums up your whole problem:

It is necessary to show Dr. Worthless what he needs to learn in order to participate in the discussion.

 

Who decides what information is and is not necessary to post on the internet?

How is it determined when a person does not have said information?

By what authority is it your job to enforce posters having this necessary information?

 

And the best part is that you make the ludicrous claim that I am the one censoring, when you were the one who decided to appoint yourself as the legislature, president, judge, policeman and jailer of internet conversation. You don't have the power or authority to manage your self appointed position (heck, I'm the mod here and I don't have it), so you decided to attempt namecall Dr. Worthless until he gets sick of it and quits.

 

Which is where I come in...its my job to keep people posting here. Since calling people names causes people to quit coming over the long term, it cannot be tolerated.

 

You might be right though...I made two mistakes as moderator.

The first one was that I didn't edit out your insults before Worthless had to read them.

The second is that I was too nice to you this morning.

 

While the two of are discussing God, how about I point out another thing He says:

"Those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

 

You exalted yourself to the position of internet police, now you are being humbled.

 

All but one of your posts will be re-edited, and will be deleted if you do as much as move a comma.

You will be put on warn for the continued harr!@#$%^&*ment of Dr. Worthless.

 

 

Oh, and that pun of yours was intentional...there are plenty of synanyms to the word "worthless".

Edited November 3, 2005 by Aileron

[MonteZuma]

A zygote has a future life. While this future isn't certain, no future of life is ever certain and therefore certainty of life is not a requirement for murder. Thus abortion takes away from the zygote just as much as murder takes from an adult.

I agree. An abortion potentially takes away more 'future life' from an embryo than is taken from a murdered adult. But I believe the zygote/embryo has no rights, and nor should it, until it becomes conscious/sentient/whatever.

[»i88gerbils]

If you don't realize it is necessary to sidetrack a discussion in order to get down to basic differences, then you don't know anything about discussions. We were at a standstill because one poster decided to ignore or not read posts and then make re!@#$%^&*ed comments.

 

Censorship is removing someone else's words. I am merely a mirror. I do not remove others posts only comment based on experience.

 

He deserved little respect without making sense and no respect for ignoring help. You cannot call it ad hominem if it's true.

 

"Oh, and that pun of yours was intentional...there are plenty of synanyms to the word "worthless" (Aileron). What a pitiful opinion. If you intend to say that I am dishonest, then by all means make that accusation. It is false.

 

See? Look at your aggressive behavior. You cannot see passed your mistake in your censorship, but instead lash out just like Dr. Worthless did merely by my making a suggestion. That's the kind of idiocy that ruins discussions. Your inevitable reply that I had lashed out myself is unacceptable for two reasons: 1) I base my insults off of the actual replies that people make and 2) it's not true. The moment Worthless decided to trash ideas without any logical discourse was the moment he deserved no respect.

 

People have every right to live life in ignorant bliss of discussions, but that does not necessarily protect them from others trying to remove the veil from over their heads.

[Aileron]

Mistake? What mistake? You were behaving disrespectfully to another poster. If you didn't push the issue I wouldn't have even cared, because arguements can easily get heated. However, you went back and reinserted your insults.

[»i88gerbils]

Does anybody want to answer my question? Or is the discussion over in favor of abortion?

[MonteZuma]

N.B.: Apologies to Montezuma for getting off-topic with his point about sentience, but I'm not sure that point will lead to anywhere productive.

Feel free. I like fluid discussion as much as you do. The topic is abortion, so you haven't gone OT at all.

[Aileron]

yeah, I guess it would be best if this topic resumed.

 

"Pulling the plug" refers to removing medical care to somebody already dead. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. Euthanasia involves killing or ceasing treatment to somebody barely alive, but it is controversial in itself...one cannot use one contraversial issue to prove another.

 

Executions and War is different. They require grand justifications to overrule the right to life, and everyone will agree that if the world was a perfect place neither would be necessary. I know in a previous post I said that the right to life cannot be overruled by another's right to liberty. Wars for instance require massive justifications, such as the liberty of an entire country or presence of m!@#$%^&* executions. Executions are similar, but as I said, one cannot use one contraversial issue to prove another.

 

This however is slightly off the issue. The difference between war, euthanasia, and murder are irrelevent to what we have in mind.

 

Abortion is different than "pulling the plug", because the fetus is alive. (otherwise it would be labeled as a miscarriage)

Abortion is clearly different than executions because the fetus could not possibly commit crimes.

Abortion is different than war, because killing the fetus cannot possibly advance any great cause.

 

Abortion is very similar to euthanasia however, though is very different in terms of the arguement I am using, because a fetus has a future life of personhood, wheras the dying patient does not.

 

My opinion on euthanasia btw is that the doctors should decide what to do on a case by case basis, and politicians and lawyers should pretty much keep their hands off, though government should still regulate enough to prevent quacks from forming suicide clinics.

[MonteZuma]

one cannot use one contraversial issue to prove another.

We can use anything we like to help explain our world view. We aren't debating facts, we are debating ethics.

[AstroProdigy]

"Abortion is different than "pulling the plug", because the fetus is alive. (otherwise it would be labeled as a miscarriage)"

So is the person in the coma. They don't have any brain functions and cannot survive on their own. Guess what that's the same as a fetus.

 

"Abortion is clearly different than executions because the fetus could not possibly commit crimes."

Of course a fetus can commit crimes. You say a fetus is the possibility of life so why can't the fetus be the possibility of an cereal killer.

 

"Abortion is different than war, because killing the fetus cannot possibly advance any great cause."

Killing the fetus advances the great cause of womens' rights and the last time i checked the pursuit of oil isn't a great cause.