volchitsa wrote: » I'm not intentionally arguing a straw man, I just genuinely don't understand what point you're trying to make here. What difference does it make that we use one word for the whole of a pregnancy?
You made a point about people being forced to be born, even though we're all forced to be born, but you completely dismiss the fact that women who don't want to continue a pregnancy are forced to give birth. I've idea what you really mean here and nor, I suspect, do you.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » Again, argmentum ad populum doesn't negate the true equivalency of abortion - the taking of an innocent human life - and killing a new born - the taking of a innocent human life. You can argue the circumstances surrounding why it was done, but it doesn't change the reality of the two equivalent actions. Glad you agree. No, I am simply saying that legality =/= objective morality. Slavery in the US was legal, and it didn't make in objectively moral. Just because something is democratically elected (or via a constitutional republic) does not mean it is moral. Yes, Ireland came to a consensus. It doesn't automatically mean the consensus was objectively moral. I am not making the argument that "you are wrong because I say so"; on the contrary. I explained very clearly why killing an innocent unborn human is no different to killing an innocent born human. The actions are the same. The only difference is surrounding the circumstances behind the justification of taking an innocent human beings life; which abortion does not rationally do. Another strawman. I never once said abortion is murder. Abortion is only murder when it is illegal. Right now abortion is intentional homicide; but it isn't murder. The meaning of words is important.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » If a government outlaws rape; they aren't forcing you not to rape. They are simply saying that if you rape, you will be held accountable for the consequences. If a government outlaws intentional homicide (murder); they aren't forcing you not to kill. They are simply saying that if you intentionally kill, you will be held accountable for the consequences. If you take a condition (a biological process) for example. If the government outlaws haircuts; the government isn't forcing your hair to grow (your hair is growing independently of the law; government policy isn't the impetus behind the biological process of hair growth); they are simply saying that if you do cut your hair, you will be held accountable for the consequences. In order for somebody to force a biological process to occur, they would have to be the impetus behind the biological process itself. Force means: impetus/energy/compulsion to do something. It is physically impossible for anyone to force pregnancy on someone unless they directly impregnate them, in the same way that I am not "forcing" grass to grow by not cutting it; the grass is growing independently of my intentions or desires for the grass.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » Slavery EXISTED throughout human history legally; did it make that immoral? Or amoral?
In both scenarios - abortion - and killing a newborn, an innocent human being's life is being directly taken with intent.
splinter65 wrote: » But there’s been an equal amount of mud slinging and violence from the other side.
This went viral.https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/10/05/hairstylist-fired-roundhouse-kick-antiabortion-protesters-shoulder-toronto/?utm_term=.95fd7bc7f580
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » No it isn't, homicide (intentional or not) is illegal and can/does result in a criminal record/imprisonment after a successful conviction in the courts. If abortion was "intentional homicide" as you claim then why are women and doctors not being arrested/charged/convicted?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » What a load of sub-Jesuitical nonsense. If you campaign to make abortion illegal, you are campaigning to force women to remain pregnant against their will. It's as simple as that. If you find the concept of forcing women to remain pregnant against their will to be troubling, then it indicates you need to rethink your whole position on abortion. But instead you deny the reality of what you are doing in order to make yourself feel better. "Nothing to do with me bud" when actually if you campaign for it it's everything to do with you.
According to the bible slavery is perfectly moral as long as you don't excessively mistreat your slaves... so I hope you don't think there's any sort of "objective" morality in that book of tall tales.
An embryo or foetus with no developed brain or consciousness is not, imho, a human being.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » Saying "you're wrong it's as simple as that", isn't an argument.
I'm not religious nor did I argue for a specific religion to determine what is objectively moral or immoral.
Your opinion doesn't negate the objective reality of what an unborn human objectively is. It isn't even contested in the medical or scientific community what a fetus is. It is a unborn human being; a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.
What you are erroneously conflating
is the abstract concept of "personhood". There isn't a personhood gene. Instead human worth - the right to exist - is arbitrarily defined along a process of maturation. It is merely opinion. It is impossible to quantify as personhood is an abstract concept that doesn't exist in physical reality. The problem is the arbitrary putting a pin in it so to speak, is contradictory and can be applied to born humans.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » No, there is an argument but you're ignoring it. By campaigning for abortions to be illegal, you are responsible for the consequences of such a law - the consequence being that some women who want abortions will be unable to have one, instead they will be obliged against their wishes to remain pregnant and ultimately give birth. Now I don't know about you, but being obliged to do something against my will fits the defintion of 'forced' quite nicely in my opinion.
You're asserting that abortion is immoral but providing no basis for that assertion.
You earlier referred more than once to an objective morality, if you believe that an objective morality can exist then what is the source for it, if it is not your religion?
Ah, the old taxonomy argument again. A potential human being is not yet a human being.
But you said above that 'Saying "you're wrong it's as simple as that", isn't an argument.'
We accept that a person who is brain dead is dead, I don't see why we should accept an entity that has not yet developed any brain activity to be a human being.
volchitsa wrote: » Yeah, look, this discussion has been had. All aspects of the spect were fully and freely examined. Then we voted on it. The conclusion was clear - a large majority of people who had considered the question have rejected your beliefs. I don't expect you to change your views just because you lost the debate and the vote, but I do have to say that you going on repeating it ad nauseated is most unlikely to suddenly work when it so completely failed before. And I am not going to continue to go over the same thing again and again, and actually I think the mods should start to remove this sort of repetitive spamming stuff. That's all it is at this point.
volchitsa wrote: » I think the mods should start to remove this sort of repetitive spamming stuff.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » I already said I didn't enter this conversation to discuss the immorality of abortion. I left a comment on the use of a word. And then posters asked me to clarify my position.I was pro-choice until less than 2 years ago.
You are free to believe anything you wish as well. In our secular world we are simply advocating to enforce our morality onto other people. In this case your side won. I believe establishing law predicated on the notion that human beings "objectively" worthless, is not a good idea. So let's leave it there. The thread is redundant unless both parties are willing to change their mind (which I always will be).
volchitsa wrote: » Well, you apparently only joined here last March so I have no idea of the truth of this
but I would actually be interested in hearing why and for how long you were pro choice, what changed your mind on this and how far?
Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. Existential nihilism is the notion that life has no intrinsic meaning or value, and it is, no doubt, the most commonly used and understood sense of the word today.
or instance do you think a raped 12 year old like the girl in NI recently should be forced to stay pregnant. When would you allow someone to have an abortion?
This is the sort of thing I meant when I said there was no point in you repeating your evidence-free assertions about abortion being wrong : prolifers have said that, and people rejected that. You can keep repeating it, but I'm at a loss as to why. Assuming you actually want to convince others that is. But maybe you don't.
As I say, each side repeating their conclusions is utterly pointless at this stage, I agree. But I would genuinely be interested to know, if you changed your mind once, what it would take to change it back.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » You're already in that situation when you're pregnant, you cant be re-forced into something that already exists. It's not like you are enslaved, escaped, and then are forced back into slavery. These kinds of arguments just highlight that the abortion advocate side fundamentally don't even begin to understand the pro-life position AT ALL. Is it my business if you neglect your 2 year old? Is it the person's business who lives two counties over that you drowned your 5 year old? Is it anyone else's business if you kill your neighbour? None of the above directly affect you. You were not involved. It has no direct bearing on your life. The law exists to (is supposed to) hold everyone accountable for the their actions. Abortion isn't "treatment". It is the ending of an innocent human life. It is only medically necessary when the mother's life will end otherwise. In which case you have a case of 2 deaths vs 1, and the rational thing is to take the lesser of two evils.
volchitsa wrote: » No, I'm not saying mine is right, I'm saying it is unclear that yours is right and therefore abortion, like divorce or contraception, has to be considered as something that falls to a large extent within the domain of personal morality and even personal opinion.
Your belief that it would one wrong for you to have an abortion is absolutely fine, my objection is to your claim that that makes it acceptable for you to tell someone else whether they should have one or not.
So no, I'm not arguing from a nihilistic point of view, I do believe that there are things that are objectively right or wrong. I suggested as much above, when I mentioned theft. I'd add child sex abuse and a number of other things. I just don't believe that abortion is one of them.
For various reasons, but mainly because a ban on abortion requires removing some of a woman's rights. I have no issue with someone giving a fetus all the rights they want. Ido have a problem with any of these rights ever taking priority over a woman's right not to be pregnant if she decides she doesn't want to be.
By the way, I don't think there is any right to pursue happiness, it's a silly aspirational clause which means nothing. And I've no idea why you bring it up on an Irish Internet forum either.
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » Abortion is not the neglect of a child. While you're so big into definitions, maybe you want to look up the definition of child
For the third time, my neighbour is a living person (presuming you mean adult). Killing an adult is not the same as abortion. Look up the meaning of adult. To kill a living person is against the law. That is not what abortion is. And it is medical treatment.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » No, you might want to. I will give you the modern day definition of "Child"; from both an America and British Dictionary, and I will also explain the etymology of the word for further clarification. The word "child" comes from the Old English "ċild", which meant "fetus" or more appropriately "female fetus". The modern day definition of child means any human below the age of puberty, born and unborn. No you are wrong on every level. Killing is scientifically - and by every definition - the ending of a life. This can be as simple as single cell death or killing bacteria. Killing people is not against the law. You can kill in self-defence, lethal force by police is legal when indicated. Intentional homicide is NOT the same as murder (murder is illegal by definition).
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » Definition of a child:- child [chīld] the human young, from infancy to puberty. ^^ see above medical definition of a child. Killing my neighbour is not the same as abortion. Killing a person, such as my neighbour, is not the same as abortion.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » An adult isn't a teenager, a teenager isn't an infant, an infant isn't a fetus and a fetus isn't an embryo. But they are ALL the same human being from the moment they exist until death. You are choosing an arbitrary point along development to attach subjective and illusory worth onto another human being.
King Mob wrote: » And at what point does this happen exactly? And why that point?
Fuddyduddy wrote: » Personhood? Conception, by virtue of being a human being of the species homo sapiens sapiens. A human being is an organism with the gene expression for development from conception to death. A zygote stem cell is unique from other somatic cells. It's like asking when a seed becomes a seed; when the genetic information combines to to
Fuddyduddy wrote: » LOL You just focused on one description of the definition. The entire encompassing definition - etymologically AND in both US and British dictionaries IS unborn AND born. Cherry-picking your definition is intellectually dishonest. Secondly; here is the medical definition from a medical dictionary, including and not limited to born and unborn. As for your second point.. smh. This is the ENTIRE debate surrounding abortion. You are debating the definition of the abstract concept of personhood. There is no "personhood" gene. It is not a physical reality that can be quantified or examined in isolation in a lab in order to objectively define what it is. In YOUR opinion the unborn child is not a "person" worthy of the right to life. The only non-contradictory definition is to begin when that human being's life began on a trajectory of maturation; conception, implantation on wards. An adult isn't a teenager, a teenager isn't an infant, an infant isn't a fetus and a fetus isn't an embryo. But they are ALL the same human being from the moment they exist until death. You are choosing an arbitrary point along development to attach subjective and illusory worth onto another human being.
King Mob wrote: » But why there? What differentiates a fertilised egg from sperm and unfertilised eggs? Is it simply that it's a cell with all the right genes? And as an additional point, do you believe that from the moment of conception that such a fertilised egg is the same as an infant, with all the rights and protections of such? If so, when the fertilised egg fails to implant and doesn't continue to develop, should that be treated as a potential homocide? If not, why not?
The endometrium is one of the few uterine surfaces to which a blastocyst cannot always implant. The properties of the endometrium change, and only in a brief window can the blastocyst implant on the tissue. In humans, that window includes days six through ten after ovulation. Just prior to ovulation, the endometrium begins to thicken and to expand in response to the release of estrogen from the ovaries. As the embryo moves through the fallopian tubes, the endometrium proliferates, changes in shape, becomes receptive to implantation, and produces a hospitable environment for the embryo. Signaled by the release of progesterone from the ovaries, a series of changes called decidualization occurs. Decidualization includes the gathering of white blood cells around endometrial arterioles, or blood vessels leading from arteries to capillary beds. As that vasculature forms, a molecule that stores energy, called glycogen, accumulates in the expanding connective tissues of the uterus. Furthermore, the endometrium swells as interstitial fluid accumulates in it. The endometrium, swollen with interstitial fluid, vasculature, and nutrients, provides a hospitable environment for embryogenesis.
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » Ah here, I'm not cherry picking or choosing anything. It's the pro life side trying to stick value on to things when it suits them. Unless you've been to the funeral of a 9 week old embryo.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » Is this supposed to be a serious argument? LOL
Fuddyduddy wrote: » A sperm cell is a haploid cell with half the genetic information required to be a human being. An oocyte is the same. A zygote is a diploid cell that possesses all of the gene expression to development from that moment until death. The human genome is unique to that organism as a complete human being. They have the same right to life yes. Intentional is not comparable with spontaneous miscarriage or a spontaneous heart attack. Just because someone dies doesn't mean it was someone else's fault.
Fuddyduddy wrote: » A sperm cell is a haploid cell with half the genetic information required to be a human being. An oocyte is the same. A zygote is a diploid cell that possesses all of the gene expression to development from that moment until death. The human genome is unique to that organism as a complete human being. They have the same right to life yes. Intentional is not comparable with spontaneous miscarriage or a spontaneous heart attack. Just because someone dies doesn't mean it was someone else's fault.The mother's body welcomes and facilitates implantation. Once implantation occurs the only way to cease pregnancy is by directly killing the human.https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/process-implantation-embryos-primates
volchitsa wrote: » What's with the anthropomorphism? If a woman becomes pregnant after a rape, would you really think to tell her that her body "welcomed and facilitated" the pregnancy? What does that even mean? How does a body "welcome" something that the person herself clearly finds to be not just unwelcome but a violent invasion of her body? Is she wrong?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
