Am I being a natzi sod or what?

[Baron Morte]

I was discussing the abortion issue with some people. I am pro choice, and I argued that the fetus is not yet a person, considering that it has no cognoscence, no dreams and hopes, no one know it so no one would miss such a person.
Then someone said "well what if the fetus is born, and the parents still dont like it, and the pregnancy and the delivery is not know to no one else, so it would still be ok to kill such a baby, considering that it hasnt delevoped consciousness yet"
So that I wouldnt fall into contradiction, i agreed. Also with the painless slaughter of people in vegetative state, or a profound state of mental illness.

Thoughts anyone?

[Snurx]

I am pro-abortion, but after the child is born, it has the right of life. After it's born, that is.

[Baron Morte]

why?
I mean
there is little difference.
I know that the idea of murdering babies is cruel and people cant deal with it, but if not, then you are contradicting yourself.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

only if you use your argument would you be contradicting yourself.

[Snurx]

Well, mainly beacause my head works that way. I belive that the baby is not really a human before it has passed a certain stage in the prengnancy, and so, it's not okay to "kill" it then. Or something.
:\
This question is bad.

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

only if you use your argument would you be contradicting yourself.

Excuse me, but, how exactly?

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

Excuse me, but, how exactely?

using your line of argument then yes, you would be contradicting yourself. but there is another, in fact probably several, pro-choice arguments.

[Baron Morte]

?
Im not
thats why the babies must be killed in my argument!

[1-X]

Snurx recognises that there is a point when the fetus has developed beyond just being a clump of cells, after which abortion is wrong, and has redeemed himself from his first post (when the stage of development and reasons for abortion were missing).

Baron Morte, however, for saying that parents have the right to kill a newborn baby "if they don't like it" is an utter cretin.

(me go sleepy bye-bye's now so don't bother replying but please tell whoever looks after you that pirate.planetarion.com needs to be added to your institution's filtering software)

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

aarrrrggghhh, i know! im saying if you disagreed with babies being killed then you would be contradicting yourself, but it is possible to use another line of arguing where you wouldnt advocate the killing of babies and you wouldnt be contradicting yourself

[Baron Morte]

But i have no problem with all the baby slaughtering
Nor with the mentally impaired

[Baron Morte]

Originally Posted by 1-X

Baron Morte, however, for saying that parents have the right to kill a newborn baby "if they don't like it" is an utter cretin.

Well not for me.
Its like killing a cat or a dog. They dont even know they are alive.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

bit presumptious.

[Snurx]

So, killing a dog or a cat is ok?

[Baron Morte]

In comparison to killing a person, then yes.

[Dante Hicks]

People with mental illness do have dreams, hopes, etc. I'd say so do babies (even new born ones) - not hopes as such, but some notion of self-awareness - and dreams of a sort. It's even possible that late-stage foetus have such a thing which is why it's better to avoid late abortions. These questions are quite difficult since there is no objective test.

With new born babies, the ultimate argument against killing them is that there is simply no need. Most developed countries (I appreciate it is different elsewhere) have state agencies or charities, etc which would look after the child if strictly necessary.

People in an extreme vegatative states is a slightly different case - they are kept alive mainly to not annoy their family members plus the chance they will recover.

I won't bother addressing the animal point, my views have been expressed in a previous thread : http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=172384

[Evergreen]

If nature wouldn't of allowed said fetus to survive then by all means death wouldn't be wrong.

Nature is pro choice. In other Species the mother will kill it's newborns if there is no means to provide it with the life it wants or if it was conceived in a manner that isn't acceptable in it's society (I.e. by a male outside of it's pack).

I think if there is anything we can learn is that natural law is a good thing to relate too when we have allowed science to go too far into playing god in relative area's.

[SbOlly]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Nature is pro choice. In other Species the mother will kill it's newborns if there is no means to provide it with the life it wants or if it was conceived in a manner that isn't acceptable in it's society (I.e. by a male outside of it's pack).

Oh god, you can't actually be using that as a reason?

So you are telling me that if you get ill in the next few weeks, and need an operation you are going to refuse and die, simply because Nature is pro choice and in other species they don't cut open each other in attempt to prolong life?

[ChubbyChecker]

There's nothing wrong with being a Jehovah's Witness!

Actually there's a lot wrong with it but since I'm pro choice I'm going to pretend that there's nothing wrong with it so as to not contradict myself.

[roadrunner_0]

there is a difference between being pro choice and being a psychopath fs

[Knight Theamion]

i am pro reflective abortion, so that 16 year after the birth you can still kill it since it isn't wanted.

[roadrunner_0]

but that would mean that half the ppl on these boards would be dead my now

[Knight Theamion]

yes. if everything went right....

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

i am pro reflective abortion

That's retroactive birth control, not reflective.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by SbOlly

Oh god, you can't actually be using that as a reason?

So you are telling me that if you get ill in the next few weeks, and need an operation you are going to refuse and die, simply because Nature is pro choice and in other species they don't cut open each other in attempt to prolong life?

Yes it is.

It's not my fault you are frail with inferior gene's. Darwin all the way!

p.s. to put some perspective on this, you aren't going to save a premature fetus with some herbs. You may cure an illness though with one. Always one idiot who thinks the unreasonable extreme's.

[Evergreen]

My first two lines were sarcasm.

The P.S. was suppose to point out that if you are going to take things literally in life then stick by it and the next time someone tells you to shut your mouth or not to do anything preferrably go to the extreme of not breathing either and save these horribly low brow banal posts.

Then again I notice your spamming every thread you can with pointless one-liners in many cases. We don't need another Mark on these forums.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Forget it. He releases the hounds on
every charity that comes to his door -- Feed the Children, Save the
Whales, even Release the Hounds.

[edit]

Just ignore Paul. He's very annoying.

[Evergreen]

If by annoying you mean not confirmist to foolish pish-wash then yes.

There needs to be a forum for pointless lyrical reference spam.

Or reset everyone's post count and keep it wiped and never EVER give in to people's requests of seeing post counts again. Can't be helped when you bring back something in the hope of maturity reaching the forums only to have it backfire.

[MrL_JaKiri]

I know I didn't change my posting style due to post counts, can't talk about anyone else though.

[Dante Hicks]

From memory, the boards used to be a lot more spammy a while ago.

Originally Posted by Evergreen

p.s. to put some perspective on this, you aren't going to save a premature fetus with some herbs. You may cure an illness though with one. Always one idiot who thinks the unreasonable extreme's.

You're very unlikely to cure a lot of things with "herbs". Are you advocating an end to heart-bypass operations?

Plus, why should the application of herbs be fundamentally different to the application of advanced tech? When do we cross the line? Are pills wrong?

It's common practice to take someone's argument to an extreme case to see if the logic is still sustainable. Since you seem to be advocating the end of medicene under some silly Darwinian premise it's only logical people will ask you about it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

silly Darwinian premise

It's not only silly, it's wrong. Or at least completely misapplied.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

From memory, the boards used to be a lot more spammy a while ago.You're very unlikely to cure a lot of things with "herbs". Are you advocating an end to heart-bypass operations?

Plus, why should the application of herbs be fundamentally different to the application of advanced tech? When do we cross the line? Are pills wrong?

It's common practice to take someone's argument to an extreme case to see if the logic is still sustainable. Since you seem to be advocating the end of medicene under some silly Darwinian premise it's only logical people will ask you about it.

I am arguing the fact that the boundaries of science that we are pushing are creating many new unnatural problems.

Overpopulation, Super-virus's, Super-obesity......

I'm arguing for a sense of realism, abuse your body and you will die earlier, abuse anti-biotics and you will force virus's to evolve faster than the human body can evolve to adapt, sustain and create life where nature can't support and you will overpopulate the world.

We have to find a compromise imo something which you are all arguing against.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It's not only silly, it's wrong. Or at least completely misapplied.

Which is why I used it sarcastically.... Let's drop darwin from all arguments please :P

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Is that way Kaned has given up wanking as his New Years resolution?

Are you going to actually contribute anything to this conversation or are you just going to self-indulgently contribute to your post count and your attention whore rating.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I am arguing the fact that the boundaries of science that we are pushing are creating many new unnatural problems.

Overpopulation, Super-virus's, Super-obesity......

I'm arguing for a sense of realism, abuse your body and you will die earlier, abuse anti-biotics and you will force virus's to evolve faster than the human body can evolve to adapt, sustain and create life where nature can't support and you will overpopulate the world.

We have to find a compromise imo something which you are all arguing against.

Overpopulation is natural. Superviruses (at least in the sense of a species not being able to combat them) are natural. Super-obesity is hardly something that applies to all mankind, just to a few specific individuals, and there will always be some which are a drain on the populace.

Nature is just really shit.

[edit]

Global warming can happen 'naturally' too.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Fairly alarmist, so far we haven't had super virus's, or over population and super-obesity is clearly on some level individual choice.

However many of the problems you point out can be put down to the excesses and irresponsibility of capital or alienation rather than scientific development.

That sounds so rather american of you.

Next you'll be telling me that global warming doesn't exsist and that this is just a natural enviromental cycle we are experiencing.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Overpopulation is natural. Superviruses (at least in the sense of a species not being able to combat them) are natural. Super-obesity is hardly something that applies to all mankind, just to a few specific individuals, and there will always be some which are a drain on the populace.

I'll refer you to my above post.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

That sounds so rather american of you.

Next you'll be telling me that global warming doesn't exsist and that this is just a natural enviromental cycle we are experiencing.

Surely global warming is more of an example of arrested scientific development, given that it was mainly the Victorians who caused the problem.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I'll refer you to my above post.

You said that they weren't 'natural'.

Natural is a really terrible word, as what is natural? If you view it one way, evolution has driven us towards independent thought, so science is 'natural'.

In the post you quoted, I also said that they were natural, so yah boo sucks to your 'refer people to irrelevent posts' tactic.

[Evergreen]

I think it's apparrent that none of us are qualified enough to comment on science.

Regardless of qualifications and what they make us eligible for.

I think it's safe to leave this discussion to the internet where we can find experienced experts who have provided points of view of which their credibility depends on.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

So you don't actually have an answer then?

I refer you to my comment about Capitalist excess.

So the communists haven't done anything then?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I think it's apparrent that none of us are qualified enough to comment on science.

Regardless of qualifications and what they make us eligible for.

I think it's safe to leave this discussion to the internet where we can find experienced experts who have provided points of view of which their credibility depends on.

This isn't a scientific debate, it's to do with philosophy and semantics. 'Science' is something you've excluded from the discussion, as you've labled it as 'the bad guy' without actually telling us why the process of empirical knowledge gathering is so evil.

[Evergreen]

What allows us to be in this position to discuss the philosophy and semantics of this situations?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

What allows us to be in this position to discuss the philosophy and semantics of this situations?

Our brains?

[Evergreen]

Cause clearly talking at the vaginal passage will encourage that 3rd trimester fetus right out.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

Cause clearly talking at the vaginal passage will encourage that 3rd trimester fetus right out.

We moved off abortion a long time ago dude, keep with the program

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

None of the things you have described.

So what I have described envelop's anything that can be done by the species then?

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

We moved off abortion a long time ago dude, keep with the program

If you've moved off abortion then move out this thread

[MrL_JaKiri]

Same to you duder :coolio:

Originally Posted by Evergreen

I am arguing the fact that the boundaries of science that we are pushing are creating many new unnatural problems.

Overpopulation, Super-virus's, Super-obesity......

I'm arguing for a sense of realism, abuse your body and you will die earlier, abuse anti-biotics and you will force virus's to evolve faster than the human body can evolve to adapt, sustain and create life where nature can't support and you will overpopulate the world.

We have to find a compromise imo something which you are all arguing against.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Same to you duder :coolio:

It was relevent to the semantics of arguing my point of to be pro-choice or not.