Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/13/10 06:04 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Why does a fruit fly deserve more protection than a human being?

Your question is illogical.

Your inability to understand my question is your fault, not mine.

At 11/13/10 11:10 AM, Ericho wrote: One thing I never understood about this argument which was proposed by Sam Harris. He said stem cells were insignificant and can not be treated as people because they are simply a few cells and a fly has more cells than that. By defintion, a blue whale is much larger than a person, so by his logic, wouldn't that mean a blue whale is more important than a person? Or for that matter any large animal? More cells does not mean a more intelligent lifeform.

Try reading him again.

At 11/13/10 12:15 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

An answer can be logical without being particularly deep. Don't conflate the two. Just because a moral framework does not define why a human life is more valuable than a fly's does not make it illogical. It just makes it relatively shallow.

I'm just asking you to explain why you think that a Fetus deserves legal protection despite the fact that it can't think, feel, or express any preferences in regards to being aborted or not. From the way you keep evading the question, it seems to me like you don't have an answer and are trying very hard to hide it.

At 11/11/10 05:51 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/11/10 02:47 AM, The-General-Public wrote: Your position makes so little sense I ought to ask you the same thing

Wait... what's my position?

So far my positions are...

1. Hypocrisy described by a semantic misinterpretation of the term 'pro-life' is, in itself, a stupid argument.

If you believe that a fetus, incapable of thought, feeling, or the ability to exist physically independent of another being is more deserve of legal protections than say an adult fruit fly, then I'd like to hear your reasons why you believe this. No semantics involved there.

:2) asking for a level of philosophical consistency that you'd be more apt to find in a dysfunctional person.

I'd just like to see an answer that's actually logical

At 11/11/10 02:07 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 11/10/10 10:17 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/10/10 09:29 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Well, your philosophy will be logically coherent at least then.

Seriously... are you trolling me?

He's like a liberal version of cellardoor6.

Only with less links and lacking in mormonism.

I have no idea who that is. My point still stands though, Bacchanalian hasn't given any coherent reasons for explaining his beliefs.

At 11/10/10 10:17 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/10/10 09:29 PM, The-General-Public wrote: Well, your philosophy will be logically coherent at least then.

Seriously... are you trolling me?

Your position makes so little sense I ought to ask you the same thing

At 11/10/10 09:39 PM, fuSEEk wrote:

At 11/10/10 08:55 PM, The-General-Public wrote: So why does a human fetus deserve more care than another living creature?

A bit contradictory, since fetuses are living creatures. If you've ever seen an ultrasound of an abortion you'd know the fetus has certain sentience as it is clearly agitated and tries to avoid the life getting sucked out of it. So, if this fetus is aware of its danger, why does it not deserve the right to be protected as a person.

If you actually understood medical science you'd know that fetuses don't develop sentience(at the absolute earliest) until the formation of the thalamus during the 25th week of pregnancy(again at the absolute earliest.) If you actually understood simple demographics, you'd know that 99.9 percent of abortions occur well before that point.

I've actually learned how both D&E and IDX abortions are done, and have actually seen a D&E performed, you watched some goofy video from a church group (my bet is 1984's comedy classic, "The Silent Scream") and consider yourself an expert on "fetology." Sorry, just because some other kooks made a video that supports your own kooky preconceptions doesn't mean it has any basis in reality, try again.

At 11/10/10 08:59 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/10/10 08:55 PM, The-General-Public wrote: So why does a human fetus deserve more care than another living creature?

Fine! You've made your point! I'll stop using mouth wash!

Well, your philosophy will be logically coherent at least then.

So why does a human fetus deserve more care than another living creature?

At 11/9/10 03:05 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 11/9/10 12:31 PM, satanbrain wrote: i've just wondered

no.

Well, you convinced me.

At 11/7/10 07:17 PM, Gario wrote:

I'm agreeing that it isn't a mystery where rights come from - people decide those rights.

Yes, and society, the courts, and especially women, have decided that they want to have the right to end
their pregnancy without giving birth. People seem to think that it's better than a woman has a right to her body than a fetus has a right to life. What's the big problem?

Before I move on, I really need to ask - why do women need this right? I mean, I know of at least one case where I'd sympathize (rape), and another case where I wouldn't dare infringe their right to live (take the life of the mother/baby if baby is born), but other than that, what is the goal woman are trying to achieve? Maybe that would help, because tossing around the terms 'Choice' and 'Right' is a meaningless way to proceed if both sides don't really know the purpose of it all.

why don't you ask a woman who's had an abortion?

At 11/7/10 04:24 PM, Memorize wrote:

So why do you people support a "state' decision on one hand, but not the other?

Simple, the question of abortion is a constitutional issue. Nobody is saying that a murderer has a constitutional right to kill a fetus of a pregnant woman who wants to carry the child to term.

Though you've once again, neglected to condemn those pro-abortion groups who NEVER criticize those laws.

I'm pro-choice, and I support those laws. I think that the pain and suffering that a pregnant woman must feel after she loses a child she intends to bring to term warrants significantly harsher punishment on the offender.

L to the O to the L!

calm down.

I could say a fetus should be a person when it begins development of its own heart and later begins pumping its own blood through its own genetically independent body.

You could, I would disagree, as well as US law.

After all, YOU'RE the one defending these abortions. You're the one defending Roe v. Wade. How can you support the woman going for an abortion, but then condemn the physician for killing it and throwing the newborn into the garbage when the procedure fails?

Pretty easily, actually.

At 11/6/10 07:27 PM, Gario wrote:

- I guess there is some mysterious force restricting anything other than 'people' from having rights, eh? That's also a fairly large assumption, wouldn't you say?

It's a larger assumption to say there is some mysterious force giving anything rights at all.

Y'know, it's a funny argument, all flaws aside - people think they're in the clear when they define the fetus as an organ. While I guess a woman has the right to get rid of her own organs, if the choice was made for reasons outside of saving her own life (kidney infection, for example) it would be considered self-mutilation.

Still would be her choice to make. self-mutilation, and even suicide are not against the law.

Better for whom? Begging the question a little bit, admittedly, but is it better for the mother or the fetus?

seeing as fetuses don't have preferences, it's a faulty question.

At 11/5/10 05:48 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/2/10 09:16 AM, Kid wrote:

At 11/2/10 12:31 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: When a HUMAN impregnates a HUMAN, the result of said impregnation is always a HUMAN.

One thing I always wonder is how Pro-lifers feel about miscarriages?

A freak of nature. Tragic, but so are most natural disasters.

1 out of 4 pregnancies ends in miscarriages. Thousands, if not millions could be avoided if the woman were more careful with her body earlier in the pregnancy and refrained from drinking, smoking, exerting herself, eating poorly, or subjecting herself to stress. Shouldn't these miscarriages be prevented if possible?

At 11/4/10 04:58 PM, Nitr0gen wrote: The point - Don't oversimplify an incredibly complicated topic.

The point is that you made a simple question of political opinion into an overly complicated question of moral philosophy.

At 10/11/10 08:36 AM, TheMason wrote:

On the other hand the movie used much from WWII Nazi propaganda films and analyzed the argument that Plato's work provided a philosophical basis for 20th Century rulers such as Hitler, Stalin and Khomeini.

Which is why the movie is far more enlightening than the book

At 10/2/10 10:39 PM, Leap wrote:

I also find the idea interesting of only being able to vote if you've proved yourself worthy. If that had been the case we'd probably wouldn't have had to endure Bush for 2 terms.

Or because the military voted overwhelmingly for Bush, we'dve had him for life

At 11/2/10 03:44 PM, Aesopian wrote: Which one of these is the one where they can only abort if the child is dead/lethal to the mother and the like?

Pro-life.

At 11/2/10 02:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'd also like to ask pro-lifers about the concept of "personhood". For example, I remember in high school there was a girl there that was blind, deaf, retarded, and confined to a wheelchair. She had no concept of the world around her and no ability to react with it. Is this girl still a person with a life, or merely a human being who exists? I'd like some other people to chime in too actually as this was always a difficult question for me to come to grips with.

The answer is that we need to ditch the idea that there is such a thing as some platonic ideal as personhood. Instead we need to think rationally about the kind of society we want to live in, and how to eliminate suffering the best we can. Since fetuses don't think, feel, or experience anything at all until well into the third trimester, I'm not willing to give them anything remotely approaching personhood status.

At 11/1/10 07:54 AM, camobch0 wrote: I'm Pro-Abortion. Not as in forcing abortions, but encouraging them and getting rid of any social stigmas toward them.

Why encourage them? I'm pro-choice, but I still would rather have contraception(which abortion does not count as) encouraged instead. If nothing else, abortion is pretty draining and unpleasant procedure. I want every stigma and legal boundary to abortion eliminated, but I still want fewer abortions.

At 10/31/10 09:54 PM, Gario wrote: Good lord, anyone who posts a topic about 'Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice' is either looking for a fight or trying to preach to a choir. I suspect it's actually a bit of both in this thread, but whatever.

Since there seems to be virtually no pro-lifers in here (what, are we scared of the pro-choicers in here?), I'll come in and say I'm pro-life.

Why?

Revenge in a heartbeat. And that's why we have the police. Average citizens cannot, and should not be expected to make rational decisions in situations like that which you described.

At 10/30/10 05:02 PM, Imperator wrote:

I don't know how many people they expected, but they needed more speakers and jumbo screens. The crowd extended forever.

That was a real pain

At 10/27/10 06:29 AM, BezFriend wrote: I remember that the first humans are also murderers (a.k.a. Story of Cain and Abel) Also, they are adulterers (a.k.a. Magdalena) They are also tax collectors (a.k.a. Matthew). I hope you know where I'm getting at.

You take the bible to be historically factual?

At 10/27/10 09:41 PM, Ledgey wrote: Pro-life except in certain circumstances, ie chance of death to the mother, rape etc.

I'm not particularly relgious but I've just always thought it was wrong to use abortion as a contraceptive. The way I see it, it's a life being aborted, a potential human being. It's chance at life is being severed because it was conceived during some drunken encounter? Because they're 'unaffordable'? I just think that's morally wrong.

If abortion is taking a human life. Why is it morally acceptable to murder a child because of its mother's misfortune?

I was halfway into replying to HibiscusKazeneko's post before I realized he was trolling...

At 10/27/10 05:58 PM, BezFriend wrote: Suing the Pope for damages caused by acts of god. What do you guys think?

Btw, this is a joke from one of my colleagues. Please don't flame and keep it civil =)

I hope your colleague isn't a comedian.

At 10/27/10 06:18 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/27/10 05:29 PM, Memorize wrote: Am I the only one who finds it amusing when people claim they want there to be less abortions, but then demand it be legal and free for everyone by taking other people's money by force to fix someone else's problem they had nothing to do with?

I don't find it amusing, but I do find it an odd if not confusing statement given that if it were a socialized system and he's encouraging people to get it (you left off that part of his post), it would increase the number of abortions given annually. I mean, he's lowered if not eliminated the cost of abortions for those needing/wanting them, increased the availability, and is encouraging people to get them... and he prefaces all this by saying he doesn't want more abortions.

Simple, I want fewer abortions. But I want fewer abortions because fewer women need them, not because they're harder to get.

I don't support killing everyone under the age of 18 either, even though that would reduce child sexual abuse cases to 0 a year(something I presume we're all in favor of)

At 10/27/10 02:19 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/27/10 12:30 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

I don't want more abortions. However, I still think it should be legal and free for all, collectively financed

And this would be why you idiots can't be taken seriously.

Way to contribute to the discussion

Pro-Choice. But I'm a little doubtful that an argument about abortion will be productive. I was pro-life for a long time. The entire idea that abortion was anything other than murder was alien to me. I gradually became pro-choice of my own volition, and now the idea that abortion is murder is just as ridiculous. Anyone here willing to debate abortion is likely too set in their ways to consider any real argument their opponent makes.

Abortion has existed for as long as humans have been getting pregnant. The use of drugs and artificial methods to induce abortion doesn't go back quite as far, but is still relatively ancient.