 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Skydude Armos Knight                    Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| There are indeed examples that are less volatile to use, but my point was that while volatile, the use of Nazis as an analogy makes the point rather clear, and the fact that even this extreme example was STILL said to be not necessarily wrong by Dracoon makes it so that SS didn't need to continue bringing up progressively stronger examples until getting here (which he would've needed to if he had started with a weaker example). So wasn't it better just to start here? | |||
Silvershield   580   Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| I knew, as soon as I hit "Submit Reply," that someone would take issue with my mention of Nazis. Godwin's Law is in reference to the arbitrary mention of Hitler or Naziism - it hardly applies when the analogy is valid and relevant.
Edit because I have to learn to preview my posts even when they're two sentences long. Edit again to correct my previous edit tag! OCD AHHH!! (edited by Silvershield on 04-23-06 04:18 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| Anyways, back to abortion. Because now we're arguing the policies of Godwin's Law. | |||
|
Usernoname Newcomer Since: 04-23-06 Last post: 6595 days Last view: 6595 days |
| ||
| A fetus's right to live does not give it the privilege to use another human body against their will. That would be giving the fetus a right above what born human beings have. It would be giving a fetus the right to use a born adult's body as a means for his/her survival! Replace the word fetus by adult in the last phrase and notice how insane that sounds?
Analogy: Let's say your cousin is dying and needs something from your body, a kidney. The odds are shown low and he needs one from his family. He wants you to go do a check up to see if it matches with his. Does your cousin have the right to take a kidney from you if he needs it to survive? Withouth your permission? No, it's your body you have no obligation to donate anything; even to save a life. The ideal would be that the fetus could be able to live on it's own even if removed from the body of the mother, but we all know that's not the case in our current world. So as long as the embryos and fetuses are stuck upon relying on another's body to grow into a potential human being, they have no right equal to that of a mother or a born human being. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by UsernonameOnce that child has been born, his parents are lawfully obliged to expend their own personal resources to preserve its life. A parent who does not feed, clothe, and otherwise care for his child is one that will be prosecuted as a criminial. Why is the mother not bound by that same obligation before the child is born? |
|||
|
Usernoname Newcomer Since: 04-23-06 Last post: 6595 days Last view: 6595 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield That child, once born, is free from the physical bondage it depended on to live and that prevented it from being free to be taken care by anyone else. Take that child and leave it to the care of someone else and it will be fine; unlike before, there isn't that unique person who the baby needs to survive. Once the baby is born, if the parents decide they don't want the baby, they can always give the baby up for adoption. I doubt a woman would go through labor, have the baby and just leave it there to die. That sort of thing only happened when abortion was made illegal. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by UsernonameWhether it is to be done by the biological mother or not, a child has the lawfully enforced right to be cared for. Likewise, a fetus should have that right to be taken care of, because it is a being that is incapable of doing so itself. Just because the biological mother is the only one capable of doing so doesn't diminish that child's right. Originally posted by UsernonameAbortion has been legal in American for a long time, and the story of a child thrown in a dumpster and left to die is still frequent enough to contend with your statement. |
|||
|
Usernoname Newcomer Since: 04-23-06 Last post: 6595 days Last view: 6595 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Mind pointing out this law? A baby can be left at a hospital and it will be taken care of. A fetus needs to stay in a womans body for 9 months. There's a difference. It does diminish that child's rights because it attacks HER rights to her body. Just like someone holding a loaded gun in a persons face loses some rights by attacking the victims rights. Originally posted by Silvershield Frequent enough? It surely isn't the same magnitude it was back then. |
|||
mattp Red Paratroopa Since: 03-04-06 Last post: 6560 days Last view: 6560 days |
| ||
By default, a person is wrong until he supports his claim with evidence. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Actually no, it is simply an observation that a thread argument, as it gets older, is likely to result in one side or another resorting to a Nazi analogy. The law itself isn't a rule, it's a scientific law... as a thread lengthens the probability of someone making an analogy involving Nazis approaches 1. The "thread over" meme isn't actually a rule. It's an observation that this is a pretty good indicator that the debate is exhausted and no-longer worth paying attention to. This is because, legitimate analogy or not, Nazi analogies are always extremely lazy and speak of lack of imagination. It's a cheap debating tactic. (edited by Arwon on 04-23-06 10:23 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by UsernonameI hardly have knowledge of the specific legislation that compels parents to care for their children, but it certainly exists. A child that is physically abused, either violently or through the failure to provide food or healthcare, is grounds for legal action on the parents. If I knew how to go about finding the exact law that backs such action, I'd have cited it. Originally posted by UsernonameBut, as she was the one who initiated the situation (by involving herself in a sexual act), it is her rights that should be diminished, not those of the child who is innocent of any wrongdoing. Just like that person holding the gun, the woman is the one who brought about the scenario that would call for one party's rights to be diminished, which makes her the party whose rights are vulnerable. Originally posted by SilvershieldFrequent enough meaning, it still happens. Your phrasing suggested that it is no longer a crime that is ever commited, period. Arwon, I think Skydude explained - far more eloquently than I'll be able - why the Hitler analogy was valid. To paraphrase his earlier post, if I'd used a point of comparison less severe than the Nazi party, it could be considered an exception. I wouldn't needed to continually increase the severity of the analogy, each time having it considered an exception, until some accepted model of absolute evil - Hitler and the Nazis, traditionally - came up. |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6298 days Last view: 6298 days |
| ||
Silvershield - Were it not for your odd (to me anyway) insistance that anything with human DNA is automatically a full human, we'd have far less disagreement. If you could prove to me that a zygote is fully aware and sentient then i'd be on your side in this debate. As it is, i tell you i dont consider "potential humans" to be the same thing as actual humans, then you ignore that and continue on as if i just said that its ok to murder people's children in their cribs. I was never suggesting such a thing. Yes of course rescue workers go to great lengths to save one life, and rightly so, but what does that have to do with anything i said? You continually shift your argument to irrelevant points in discussions we are'nt even having. Are you suggesting that rescue workers should perform rescue missions inside vaginas? did'nt think so 
"A zygote is the single cell that results from the fusion of a sperm and an egg. Once it's divided, it's an embryo." If i remember my Biology correctly, its actually not an embryo yet, after zygote its a Blastula (sp?) but none of that matters to what i was saying and is just another odd distraction. "I took special care to point out that, while my own personal motivation for holding life in such high esteem is the presence of a soul, that's not the ground I'm arguing on. " You may think you did all that, but i immediately knew you were arguing from a religious point of view due to your inflexability and strange "i want to say soul but cant so i'll say DNA instead" tapdance. If you could prove to me that a zygote has thoughts and feelings i'd switch sides in this agrument. I think if we went and got an actual zygote and put it under a microscope and showed you it has no functioning nervous system, you'd not care in the least because you believe it has a soul. So what about test-tube babies? If i take a womans egg and fertilize it in a dish, forming a zygote, am i now a murderer for failing to have a womb to stick it in? "DNA isn't life to me, either. The various scientifically-approved signs of life - metabolism, growth, etc. - are what constitute life in my eyes. But a given organism's genetic code will define whether it is human life, which would in turn indicate whether it is eligible for the protection afforded to any other human. " Life, and sentience are unrelated things. We have been able to grow human organs off of mice by manipulating their genetic code (read about that in an article in Wired magazine a couple years ago). Does this mean that mouse has become human because it has some human DNA? Is a portion of the mouse protected as if a human being? If (or maybe when?) we encounter other sentient forms of life in the galaxy, will you consider them morally acceptable to slaughter because they lack human DNA? |
|||
|
Usernoname Newcomer Since: 04-23-06 Last post: 6595 days Last view: 6595 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield That's assuming she willingly involved herself in a sexual act. There is that famous rape scenario usually involved in the abortion debate. That does not mean I'm only for abortion in the case of rape. Until there is that perfect condom or perfect pill I think abortion should be an option for those who protected themselves. To continue with the previous scenario; it's like someone holding loaded gun in a persons face, that person being protected by a bulletproof shield with a 99% chance of breaking. That's just being plain unlucky. Originally posted by Silvershield You're right I did use the word only; it is my mistake. It wasn't meant to be taken that way. |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| Well, see, the thing about that "for people who use protection it should be an option" thing is that people KNOW that their "protection" isn't 100% effective, and they still choose to undertake in that action. This suggests that they are indeed willing to take the risk knowing full well that there is a risk, even if it is a small one. For that shield example, if you pull the trigger of the gun, you should be responsible for what happens, whether it's the 99% of the time the shield works, or the 1% it doesn't, since you know that it doesn't always work.
Let's shift the percentages, hypothetically. Let's say condoms are 50% effective (which doesn't mean the women is impregnated 50% of the time, since that can only occur during a select few days per month)...would you feel the same? |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Skydude A guh? |
|||
|
Skydude Armos Knight Since: 02-18-06 From: Stanford, CA Last post: 6569 days Last view: 6569 days |
| ||
| OK, well, I was somewhat wrong about "select few" but it tends to be less than 1/2, and as little as 1/3 of a typical cycle.
Read about the "rhythm method" for more info |
|||
Tarale 2710 Affected by 'Princess Bitch-Face Syndrome' ++++!! Persona non grata Since: 11-17-05 From: Adelaide, Australia Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
ROFL - the "rhythm method" is near useless.  I know I certainly wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it (which isn't far considering it's not a physical thing) 
Besides, a woman can release an ovum at any time of the cycle, triggered by sexual activity. EDIT: Gah! What is it with me and ovaries (edited by Tarale on 04-25-06 12:39 AM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by JombI don't find it an odd insistence. Scientifically, a zygote (and any advanced form of it) is alive. The requisite follow-up question is the issue of what species of life it is, and its genetic code clearly asserts its humanity. So, we know it's alive, and we know it's human - it's human life. That's my logic. Originally posted by JombI tried to dismiss this as a simple difference of opinion. You believe that awareness and sentience are prerequisites for humanity, I believe my above stated criteria are. We can't argue much there, except that I'll point out how a very young child is hardly all that aware, yet you wouldn't approve of its death. Originally posted by JombYou talked about how the loss of a single life from an abortion would not be such a big deal, considering the world's overpopulation. My diatribe about rescue workers and whatnot was to point out that, even in a world that is overpopulated (which is not necessarily true, depending on your source), a single life is held in great regard. Originally posted by JombYou remarked that a zygote is the epitome of mechanical process, and I pointed out that it's impossible for a zygote to satisfy that distinction because once some mechanical process actually occurs - that is, it begins to divide - it is no longer a zygote at all. I don't have enough of a familiarity with the biological terminology to be perfectly accurate at all times, but that doesn't change anything beyond the fact that the word "embryo" in one of my previous posts should be changed to "blastula." Originally posted by JombI don't mean to be incendiary when I place such emphasis on this statement, but it makes no difference what the source of my opinion is - that is not up for contention. I've said that several times, and I can no longer find a way to phrase it any differently. Whatever my motivation for my views - belief in a soul, DNA, whatever - the views themselves stay the same and would not change even if I never even mentioned that part about the soul. I could edit it out right now, and it wouldn't change a thing. Originally posted by JombThoughts and feelings have little bearing on whether a being is worth preserving. As a pointed out above, a newborn infant has neither coherent thoughts nor feelings of any consequence, yet nobody would suggest it can be killed without qualm. Originally posted by JombI know that a zygote has no functioning nervous system. This isn't an issue of my limited knowledge of science. And no, I would not begin to argue on the basis of a soul; any argument I've set forth so far has not even alluded to any religious basis, and none of those arguments would change all of a sudden. Originally posted by JombSince that zygote cannot survive outside of the womb, I would argue that you are indeed commiting an act of murder. Just as abortion, even at an early stage, is reprehensible to me, so is that roughly equivalent act. It doesn't matter whether it's been killed while in its natural "home" or in vitro. Originally posted by JombGive me a hard source before I will address this. Originally posted by JombIn that inarguably distant, perhaps even impossible, circumstance, I would hardly encourage that other sentient beings be "slaughtered" but I would not afford them the same protection of humans. But I'm not really sure it's a valid topic for debate, considering that it's a distant and unimaginable hypothetical that has no real world precedent. Originally posted by UsernonameFor the entirety of this debate, I've been discounting the rape circumstance as a statistically small portion that should not be used as if it is a significant influence. In those few cases in which the woman is not personally responsible for her own pregnancy, one most keep in mind that the child developing within her is hardly culpable either. To exact punishment on the distinct human life that is completely innocent is a wrongful act. Originally posted by UsernonameSkydude addressed this before I got to it, and with sufficient quality. Edit: Originally posted by SkydudeI don't see how that makes any difference in the validity of your argument. (edited by Silvershield on 04-25-06 12:51 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6295 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
| * zygote - from fertilization until second cell division
So once it divides into more cells it becomes an embryo. Blastula/blastospheres and blastocysts are quite different. |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6295 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Plus Sign AbominationThank you for providing basic knowledge that a quick Wikipedia-ing would've yielded.  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Christianity, abortion, and the idea of punishment for sex |
| Thread closed |
