As if the girl hadn't gone through enough, then they killed her child.
- Thread starter Deadpool
- Start date
Yes, using the same line of logic I am rationalizing killing babies inside cardboard boxes to show the absurdity of rationalizing killing babies inside the womb. I am not the one making any assumptions. I am simply basing my conclusion on the logic that inside or outside makes a difference.
Otherwise, my position only assumes that we should be consistent. If we shall justify killing babies inside the womb, then we shall justify killing them outside the womb.
Otherwise, my position only assumes that we should be consistent. If we shall justify killing babies inside the womb, then we shall justify killing them outside the womb.
No he is not. He, you, Stockton, and anyone else in this thread have simply repeated the same arguments that have been argued since Roe vs Wade. There is no new "knowledge" available to the argument, only people who chose to repeat the same points using a seemingly different line of logic to other people who are not going to change their mind on this issue. That's my point, and since I have nothing new to contribute, I will bounce from this thread after this response.
The nebulous nature of your cocky answer can only mean that you are educating no one in this thread. If there is someone who has LEARNED something new here, please speak up and state what you've learned.
In order for something to be legal, doesn't it have to be supported by arguments that are to some degree "legit"? And, please don't go into a tirade about all the stupid laws that exist in this country, we are talking about something a bit more substantial. I also believe (as I assume you do) that a fetus is viable from conception, yet, neither I nor you can scientifically prove it.
And by the way, you are talking to a father who would never have thought about getting an abortion. Yet, I won't be shoving my opinions in everyone's face, posting pictures of aborted fetuses or holding them up on street corners. There are many fucked up situations that I can think of where a person would be put to this decision, all of which are private and none of my fucking business.
And, have I "educated" anybody in here? Dropped a link to some new info that hasn't been heard before. I think not.
The nebulous nature of your cocky answer can only mean that you are educating no one in this thread. If there is someone who has LEARNED something new here, please speak up and state what you've learned.
In order for something to be legal, doesn't it have to be supported by arguments that are to some degree "legit"? And, please don't go into a tirade about all the stupid laws that exist in this country, we are talking about something a bit more substantial. I also believe (as I assume you do) that a fetus is viable from conception, yet, neither I nor you can scientifically prove it.
And by the way, you are talking to a father who would never have thought about getting an abortion. Yet, I won't be shoving my opinions in everyone's face, posting pictures of aborted fetuses or holding them up on street corners. There are many fucked up situations that I can think of where a person would be put to this decision, all of which are private and none of my fucking business.
And, have I "educated" anybody in here? Dropped a link to some new info that hasn't been heard before. I think not.
There doesn't have to be any new information. It is how the information is presented to form the logical conclusions that follow. Your entire argument here is not even on topic. Your questioning what benefit this discussion can have isn't going to defeat any arguments. Therefore the real question is, what benefit can your conjecture on what benefit there is from discussing this topic have? My points stand. If you have something to say regarding them, then do so.
Conception is the initiation of a human life. How do we NOT know this scientifically? Is it not a scientific fact that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, that is the beginning of a human life? Since we know scientifically that this is true, therefore the burden is on others to prove that it isn't.
I am not shoving anyone's opinions in anyone's face. I am simply concerned with the facts. I am also not posting pictures of aborted fetuses nor holding them up at street corners. As I said in my last post, everyone can personally decide to do whatever they want. The issue is whether there should be a facility supporting the decision to abort a fetus. You can decide to take your own life. If you are determined enough, I really can't stop you. But I'm not going to open the 'Kevorkian Memorial Hospital'. I'll let it remain, as you say, private and continue to promote that killing oneself is not a good solution to our problems, publicly.
Once again, new info is not required. Simply consider the points and see what is reasonable. If you want to bring up court decisions, then cite those specifically and we will analyze the premises presumed therein and see how reasonable they are. Why should we just blindly accept that this issue is solved because the courts already discussed it?
Conception is the initiation of a human life. How do we NOT know this scientifically? Is it not a scientific fact that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, that is the beginning of a human life? Since we know scientifically that this is true, therefore the burden is on others to prove that it isn't.
I am not shoving anyone's opinions in anyone's face. I am simply concerned with the facts. I am also not posting pictures of aborted fetuses nor holding them up at street corners. As I said in my last post, everyone can personally decide to do whatever they want. The issue is whether there should be a facility supporting the decision to abort a fetus. You can decide to take your own life. If you are determined enough, I really can't stop you. But I'm not going to open the 'Kevorkian Memorial Hospital'. I'll let it remain, as you say, private and continue to promote that killing oneself is not a good solution to our problems, publicly.
Once again, new info is not required. Simply consider the points and see what is reasonable. If you want to bring up court decisions, then cite those specifically and we will analyze the premises presumed therein and see how reasonable they are. Why should we just blindly accept that this issue is solved because the courts already discussed it?
Explain to me how my argument is not on topic. Someone posts an article about how the Vatican is excommunicating people due to an abortion performed on a raped 11 year old girl, and you guys take your argument where you took it. I simply stated that arguments on abortion can go nowhere because everyone, especially the ones in this thread, have made up their minds.
Why is your question, "the real" question? As I stated, no one is learning anything here, they're not going to speak up and say they have, so my point is valid. I could care less about the tired and old points that I have heard since jr high.
Another argument that has been spoken to time and again. You wil lsay that conception is the beginning, and others will argue about what constitutes life. A heart beat? Brain waves? What, exactly? Because none of those are present at conception. Why you insist on bringing up tired points is beyond me.
You trying to suggest that killing yourself and abortion are the same thing because the yare murder is ridiculous. One can be executed by shooting yourself in the head and the other is a surgical procedure. People should not be left to try an perform abortions by themselves in the privacy of their own homes, don't get ridiculous with your connections.
I never said you should blindly accept it because the courts already discussed it. If no new info is required, no one changes their minds, and no one is learning anything, then what's the point?
Why is your question, "the real" question? As I stated, no one is learning anything here, they're not going to speak up and say they have, so my point is valid. I could care less about the tired and old points that I have heard since jr high.
Another argument that has been spoken to time and again. You wil lsay that conception is the beginning, and others will argue about what constitutes life. A heart beat? Brain waves? What, exactly? Because none of those are present at conception. Why you insist on bringing up tired points is beyond me.
You trying to suggest that killing yourself and abortion are the same thing because the yare murder is ridiculous. One can be executed by shooting yourself in the head and the other is a surgical procedure. People should not be left to try an perform abortions by themselves in the privacy of their own homes, don't get ridiculous with your connections.
I never said you should blindly accept it because the courts already discussed it. If no new info is required, no one changes their minds, and no one is learning anything, then what's the point?
People may have made up there minds. Nevertheless, when the facts are presented, they and everyone else can see if their minds are made up with the logical conclusion. They can still choose to reject what is logical. People do this all the time. You can't force logic.
Your argument is off topic because it negates discussing the issue to begin with, which is the purpose of an internet forum. Declining to talk about an issue because you think that it won't change anyone's mind is not a valid reason that we should all cease talking about it. It may not change 99.9% of people's minds here. Still everyone will see the nature of their own position in light of the facts, and if they choose to continue to ignore those facts, so be it. The sheer fact that we discuss these things qualifies our having faith that such discussions will be taken in consideration. Otherwise we can just shut down the GOM since we are all wasting our time.
So then, since you aren't learning anything new, you agree that abortion should not be supported, right? Furthermore, since you realize that some people do support abortion, therefore you should understand that it is important to present the facts, especially on an internet forum discussion about that very topic.
We aren't even required to speculate what exactly constitutes life. All we need to know is that without unification of the human sperm with the human egg, there will not result a human life. Therefore it is this very action that constitutes the human's beginning point. There is no other known scientific cause for human conception; sperm fertilizes egg, that's it. Who is contesting this fact? Find that person and we will discuss his/her points.
Also, foreknowledge makes us responsible. Even if it is somehow reasoned that the fermented egg isn't considered a human life until 2 months into the pregnancy, foreknowledge that this is a human life makes us responsible. No amount of word-jugglery will change the facts.
You trying to suggest that a difference in execution constitutes a difference in analogy is ridiculous.
PEOPLE SHOULDN'T PERFORM ABORTIONS AT ALL just like people shouldn't kill themselves at all. My point is that if someone is really determined, then they will find a way to do whatever it is they want to do, but society should not condone what is WRONG. And if you want to say that killing a child in the womb is not wrong, fine. Then you can explain why it would be wrong to kill a child outside of the womb. Otherwise, in order to be consistent, your position must be that killing children is okay. This is called logic. You can ignore it, as can anyone, but those individuals with brains to consider the facts will have no doubt in their minds that abortion has not been rationalized but on the basis of HYPOCRISY, which of course contradicts any amount of rationalization.
If someone's position on abortion is proven to be hypocritical, then the idea is that they will reconsider their position. But of course, no one really HAS to reconsider their position. Everyone can just ignore the logic. But ceasing to discuss this topic on the basis of speculating that everyone will simply ignore the facts is not valid reason to do so. I am not going to make such a negative speculation. If I am to make a speculation in this regard, I will speculate that perhaps there are some intelligent individuals herein that will at the very least address these arguments with their own points. If everyone had your attitude then no ideas would be shared and ergo there would be no intelligent discussions.
Your argument is off topic because it negates discussing the issue to begin with, which is the purpose of an internet forum. Declining to talk about an issue because you think that it won't change anyone's mind is not a valid reason that we should all cease talking about it. It may not change 99.9% of people's minds here. Still everyone will see the nature of their own position in light of the facts, and if they choose to continue to ignore those facts, so be it. The sheer fact that we discuss these things qualifies our having faith that such discussions will be taken in consideration. Otherwise we can just shut down the GOM since we are all wasting our time.
So then, since you aren't learning anything new, you agree that abortion should not be supported, right? Furthermore, since you realize that some people do support abortion, therefore you should understand that it is important to present the facts, especially on an internet forum discussion about that very topic.
We aren't even required to speculate what exactly constitutes life. All we need to know is that without unification of the human sperm with the human egg, there will not result a human life. Therefore it is this very action that constitutes the human's beginning point. There is no other known scientific cause for human conception; sperm fertilizes egg, that's it. Who is contesting this fact? Find that person and we will discuss his/her points.
Also, foreknowledge makes us responsible. Even if it is somehow reasoned that the fermented egg isn't considered a human life until 2 months into the pregnancy, foreknowledge that this is a human life makes us responsible. No amount of word-jugglery will change the facts.
You trying to suggest that a difference in execution constitutes a difference in analogy is ridiculous.
PEOPLE SHOULDN'T PERFORM ABORTIONS AT ALL just like people shouldn't kill themselves at all. My point is that if someone is really determined, then they will find a way to do whatever it is they want to do, but society should not condone what is WRONG. And if you want to say that killing a child in the womb is not wrong, fine. Then you can explain why it would be wrong to kill a child outside of the womb. Otherwise, in order to be consistent, your position must be that killing children is okay. This is called logic. You can ignore it, as can anyone, but those individuals with brains to consider the facts will have no doubt in their minds that abortion has not been rationalized but on the basis of HYPOCRISY, which of course contradicts any amount of rationalization.
If someone's position on abortion is proven to be hypocritical, then the idea is that they will reconsider their position. But of course, no one really HAS to reconsider their position. Everyone can just ignore the logic. But ceasing to discuss this topic on the basis of speculating that everyone will simply ignore the facts is not valid reason to do so. I am not going to make such a negative speculation. If I am to make a speculation in this regard, I will speculate that perhaps there are some intelligent individuals herein that will at the very least address these arguments with their own points. If everyone had your attitude then no ideas would be shared and ergo there would be no intelligent discussions.
You're talking in circles champ, and that's about it for me. You have not proven that my point is not on topic. You have all but conceeded that you won't change anyone's mind and nobody is learning here. My point does not negate the whole GOM forum, because I have been in plenty of threads where people have posted up links and discussed information that is new to me or others. It's only this one that will go absolutely nowhere. Yes, I understand the idea of pointing out flaws in people's logic so that they may reconsider their position, but you fail to comprehend that this is one of those few subjects where no one here is going to change their minds.
I'm all for abortions, ESPECIALLY in the case of this 11 year old rape victim. I believe that it is wrong to make this child go through with the pregnancy considering her age and the nature of her pregnancy. Not until a child is born can they metabolise on their own and actively maintain homeostasis with their environment. For many people, these are requirements for life.
I really hate those people who have sex, get pregnant and then have an abortion because they are not 'prepared' to have a child, that is extremely careless. However, most of these people are young and stupid and for the most part, they are people who shouldn't be reproducing. One of the problems with this world is that too many stupid people are having kids, and the average intelligence is decreasing rapidly. How do you think Bush got into power?
Also, one of the main reasons why there are so many people starving in the 'third world' is not simply due to a lack of food, but a lack of sexual education. Some of these people have extra children because it makes it easier to survive with large families, but most of them are due to consentual sex without contraception. Why should I feel sorry for a lady in Africa who is having trouble feeding her 8 children? IMO, she shouldn't have had 8 children to start with. With contraception or, if required abortion, she wouldn't be in this pickle.
I really hate those people who have sex, get pregnant and then have an abortion because they are not 'prepared' to have a child, that is extremely careless. However, most of these people are young and stupid and for the most part, they are people who shouldn't be reproducing. One of the problems with this world is that too many stupid people are having kids, and the average intelligence is decreasing rapidly. How do you think Bush got into power?
Also, one of the main reasons why there are so many people starving in the 'third world' is not simply due to a lack of food, but a lack of sexual education. Some of these people have extra children because it makes it easier to survive with large families, but most of them are due to consentual sex without contraception. Why should I feel sorry for a lady in Africa who is having trouble feeding her 8 children? IMO, she shouldn't have had 8 children to start with. With contraception or, if required abortion, she wouldn't be in this pickle.
Oh yeah, btw - I don't care to get into any 'definition of life' or 'sanctity of life' arguments - they are my opinions and I'm one of the 99.9% of people who refuse to change their minds. In this case, n9ne's logic is subjective and is neither ultimately truthful or factual, although I must respect his and everyone elses opinion on this topic by default.
You rationalize killing inside the womb. Therefore I rationalize killing outside the womb. Why is your position more logical than mine? My example position is just as subjective as your actual position in order to make an objective point. My arguments are not about 'definition of life' or 'sanctity of life'. My arguments simply show hypocrisy. You can be one of the 99.9% of hypocrites who refuse to change their minds. No one is stopping you.
And what if by some birth defect, a birthed child could not do these things on their own? Then we could rationalize killing the child, right?
Also, "for many people" is not a valid point. What about the verdict of Hitler and his many nazis? They are also "many people". It is rather ridiculous that you try to rationalize abortion in such a way.
And what if by some birth defect, a birthed child could not do these things on their own? Then we could rationalize killing the child, right?
Also, "for many people" is not a valid point. What about the verdict of Hitler and his many nazis? They are also "many people". It is rather ridiculous that you try to rationalize abortion in such a way.
There's no point for all of us to be arguing, Like NavThaShav said Personal Opinions will not Prevail in this Forum, neither Do Ignorant Reasons as well. There are three types of people in there, those who are Pro-Life against Abortion, Those who are Pro-Choice would believe it's up to the person to have the Abortion, and there are those with no regard for human Life. Those who say that some babies should be aborted because it will cut down on Future Misfortunes. Subjects like this and Religion are two things which will never end in a Mutual Agreement that one of us is right. But that's the Beauty of Gathering the Minds, we can never agree.
So in order for me to present a 'valid point', everyone must agree with it. In that case, you have presented no valid points as I do not agree with them.
Many people believe in many things. The reason why there is such a strong debate regarding abortion and using embryonic stem cells for research is because of this difference in opinions on what constitutes life. Science says one thing, religion says another. Even among these two extremes there are many shades of grey. I don't care which view you choose to believe in, the fact is that many people believe in each. It is therefore rather ridiculous that you try to rationalize anti-abortion comments because of your views on life (you are but one of many).
As everyone here has said time and time again, this argument is pointless. I am not going to shift my position and neither are you.
Many people believe in many things. The reason why there is such a strong debate regarding abortion and using embryonic stem cells for research is because of this difference in opinions on what constitutes life. Science says one thing, religion says another. Even among these two extremes there are many shades of grey. I don't care which view you choose to believe in, the fact is that many people believe in each. It is therefore rather ridiculous that you try to rationalize anti-abortion comments because of your views on life (you are but one of many).
As everyone here has said time and time again, this argument is pointless. I am not going to shift my position and neither are you.
No, genius. You may have made a response toward me, but you didn't address the specific things I said concerning the topic.
*edit: I don't care about your argument that this topic is useless. The topic that this topic is useless, is useless. Not to mention that I am concerned only with facts, not opinions. This isn't an "I have my opinion and you have yours" situation. Everyone has the ability to understand, objectively, that there is NO valid rationalization for fetal abortion. All the so-called arguments for it are arbitrary.
*edit: I don't care about your argument that this topic is useless. The topic that this topic is useless, is useless. Not to mention that I am concerned only with facts, not opinions. This isn't an "I have my opinion and you have yours" situation. Everyone has the ability to understand, objectively, that there is NO valid rationalization for fetal abortion. All the so-called arguments for it are arbitrary.