Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The All New Abortion Spin-Off Thread...

1246789

Comments

  • #92
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is physical thing storing information. Bit like a book. Or blue prints.
    No, it's not. It's far more comparable to half of your houses foundation than the plans written on a blueprint

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but would you so that a car only becomes a new car when it has an engine? What about the wheels? Or the dash board. Is a car with an engine but no wheels a "car" but a car without the engine but with wheels not one?

    At what point in the process that starts with raw material and ends with a car rolling out of the assembly line is a "car" produced from something that isn't a car.

    From the production of the egg to some time in your late teens, your mother is growing an adult human. Picking the time the egg has its DNA reshuffled as the start of you as an individual life form is as arbitrary as any other point.

    you really need to stop saying that the production of the egg is the beginning of growth. It is physically impossible for a human egg to grow into a baby and that will not change no matter how many times Wicknight says otherwise. Only a zygote can become a baby which is a fundamentally different object to an egg. An egg makes up half of a zygote, excluding genetic mutations

    It's very difficult to compare growing a human to building a car or anything of the sort because a car is not a living being and doesn't not possess that most important of attributes of a living being, self regulated growth. It's better to use your analogy of a car journey.

    When the egg is produced it's like the car sitting in a garage waiting for an engine. It can't go anywhere without it. Your journey hasn't started yet

    When it fuses with the sperm it's like putting the engine in and starting the car. To go back to your point about genetic errors, that's like putting the engine in and finding the car won't start.

    When you hit the city limits and can floor it, that's like birth

    When you stop for a piss on the way that's your teens

    etc

    etc

    So I say conception is the point of new life because that's when you metaphorically sit in the seat and start the engine. That's when you start your journey as opposed to just having the component parts. When you call that point arbitrary, to me you're either saying that sitting down watching the tv before leaving is a part of your journey or that you're not really on a journey until you've gone through your 6th set of traffic lights


  • #93
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,840 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is physical thing storing information. Bit like a book. Or blue prints.

    Its only half a book though, the other half is in the egg, with the shell of the egg just a foundation for the human who will be made.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but would you so that a car only becomes a new car when it has an engine? What about the wheels? Or the dash board. Is a car with an engine but no wheels a "car" but a car without the engine but with wheels not one?

    At what point in the process that starts with raw material and ends with a car rolling out of the assembly line is a "car" produced from something that isn't a car.

    At the point at which you have something that has the basic requirements for a car: a frame with wheels, engine and a steering wheel. Anything else may change the type of car (make it look better, perform better etc), but wont stop it from being a car.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    From the production of the egg to some time in your late teens, your mother is growing an adult human. Picking the time the egg has its DNA reshuffled as the start of you as an individual life form is as arbitrary as any other point.

    But the point at which the DNA is shuffled is especially unique in all the points in the growing of a human adult as it will decide the biological specifics of all further points to come. All other points in the growth are dependent on what happens during the shuffle of the DNA, each variation in the shuffle of the DNA results in a different person being born.


  • #94
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But the point at which the DNA is shuffled is especially unique in all the points in the growing of a human adult as it will decide the biological specifics of all further points to come. All other points in the growth are dependent on what happens during the shuffle of the DNA, each variation in the shuffle of the DNA results in a different person being born.

    He's now going to hone in on the words unique and different to bring up clones and ask if a clone is the same being because the DNA is the same, which it of course isn't


  • #95
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    I bet if someone had started an abortion thread everyone would have avoided it like the plague. This thread is evil and sneaky. I hate the abortion debate. Lots of attempts to draw neat lines all over what is basically a nebulous mess of biological concepts, human rights and personal values.


  • #96
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you really need to stop saying that the production of the egg is the beginning of growth. It is physically impossible for a human egg to grow into a baby and that will not change no matter how many times Wicknight says otherwise. Only a zygote can become a baby which is a fundamentally different object to an egg. An egg makes up half of a zygote, excluding genetic mutations

    It's very difficult to compare growing a human to building a car or anything of the sort because a car is not a living being and doesn't not possess that most important of attributes of a living being, self regulated growth. It's better to use your analogy of a car journey.

    When the egg is produced it's like the car sitting in a garage waiting for an engine. It can't go anywhere without it. Your journey hasn't started yet

    When it fuses with the sperm it's like putting the engine in and starting the car. To go back to your point about genetic errors, that's like putting the engine in and finding the car won't start.

    When you hit the city limits and can floor it, that's like birth

    When you stop for a piss on the way that's your teens

    etc

    etc

    So I say conception is the point of new life because that's when you metaphorically sit in the seat and start the engine. That's when you start your journey as opposed to just having the component parts. When you call that point arbitrary, to me you're either saying that sitting down watching the tv before leaving is a part of your journey or that you're not really on a journey until you've gone through your 6th set of traffic lights
    These analogies are fúcking stupid. I can just say birth is when the car leaves the garage and the journey starts, and that's the most important point.

    What they demonstrate is that it's all COMPLETELY arbitrary


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    These analogies are fúcking stupid. I can just say birth is when the car leaves the garage and the journey starts, and that's the most important point.

    What they demonstrate is that it's all COMPLETELY arbitrary

    You could say that but then I would call that fcuking stupid because no one would ever suggest that a baby is not a life form right up until the point when it's born because that's a fcuking stupid suggestion. Being able to give stupid variations of my analogy does not mean my analogy is stupid.

    Birth is only the most important point in terms of conferring rights (in your estimation) but as I keep saying, I'm not talking about conferring rights, I'm talking about when it becomes a life form distinct from the parents


  • #98
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    But rights are all that matters.

    We kill animals for food because we don't consider them to have rights.

    My argument is that if we don't consider humans to have rights in their early, parasitic state of existence, then there's no problem killing them.


  • #99
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    But rights are all that matters.

    We kill animals for food because we don't consider them to have rights.
    Rights might be all that matters if you're having a debate on abortion but the only topic I'm discussing here is the incorrect assertion that a new individual life does not begin at conception :)

    If we're talking about rights then my analogy could indeed be seen as arbitrary but I'm talking about medical facts
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    My argument is that if we don't consider humans to have rights in their early, parasitic state of existence, then there's no problem killing them.
    Well that's the argument of most pro-choice people but then you have the question of why they shouldn't have rights. Personally I think they should because they're called "human rights" and not "what JC 2K3 arbitrarily defines as a person rights"


  • #100
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No, it's not. It's far more comparable to half of your houses foundation than the plans written on a blueprint
    Not the slightest. The human egg is the large cell humans produce. It is so large because it already has all the machinery need to grow a human. What it doesn't have is full blueprints because evolution worked out it was better to jumble that up at this stage.

    It waits until it gets new genetic code and then starts growing.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you really need to stop saying that the production of the egg is the beginning of growth. It is physically impossible for a human egg to grow into a baby and that will not change no matter how many times Wicknight says otherwise.

    Sweet mercy. The zygote is the egg cell Sam.

    It is like saying it is physically impossible for a car without petrol to move so when I put petrol into a car I've created something new. You haven't, you have put petrol into a car. It is still the same car it just now has petrol.

    A zygote is an egg cell that has been fertilised. It is an egg cell with new DNA. It is still the same cell.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Only a zygote can become a baby which is a fundamentally different object to an egg. An egg makes up half of a zygote, excluding genetic mutations
    The egg contains half the zygote's DNA.

    It makes up 99% of the mass and machinery of the zygote. The only thing the sperm adds is more DNA. All the machinery is already present in the egg cell.

    It is a 2 grand computer missing a hard drive. When you stick a harddrive into a computer you don't say you now have fundamentally different object to a computer without one, despite a computer without a hard drive not being able to do anything. You could stick a different hard drive in, it is still the same basic machine.

    What you are basically saying is the same as saying that when you turn on a computer, or put OS on it, you have created something that is fundamentally different objec to what you had before.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    When it fuses with the sperm it's like putting the engine in and starting the car. To go back to your point about genetic errors, that's like putting the engine in and finding the car won't start.
    No it really isn't Sam, that is a terrible analogy. DNA is not the engine of the cell. The egg already has the machinery to grow.

    When it fuses with the sperm it is like having a map. You have been sitting in your car for the last 20 minutes and the wife has just popped in with a map so you finally know where you are going.

    Did your journey start then or 20 minutes ago when you got in the car.

    Arbitary.


  • #101
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    the only topic I'm discussing here is the incorrect assertion that a new individual life does not begin at conception

    It is neither correct nor incorrect. It is merely an assertion made with terms that lack objective definition.

    You are asserting a new individual life begins at conception, others are asserting that life exists and merely changes form (i.e. conservation of energy, yadda yadda). What you fail to see about all this, and from points others have made previous (posts you've actually thanked which adds weight to my thoughts that you don't fully fathom what is being said) is that. It. Is. All. Arbitrary.

    You are not privy to some objective, absolute truth regarding life. The fact abortion is allowed is that the whole topic is subjective. By taking a pro-life stance in that you would wish the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion removed you are no better than a religious zealot who asserts that their subjective belief is absolute in truth over all others.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Sweet mercy. The zygote is the egg cell Sam.
    I know that the zygote is mostly made up of the material of the egg but the zygote is not the egg cell
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is a 2 grand computer missing a hard drive. When you stick a harddrive into a computer you don't say you now have fundamentally different object to a computer without one, despite a computer without a hard drive not being able to do anything. You could stick a different hard drive in, it is still the same basic machine.
    No, it's not. It's like a 2 grand computer with only half an operating system. Which sperm it gets fused with determines whether you have windows or linux. And most importantly, nothing can happen until you give it the rest of the operating system
    Wicknight wrote: »
    No it really isn't Sam, that is a terrible analogy. DNA is not the engine of the cell. The egg already has the machinery to grow.
    If you don't like the word engine pick any other part of the car that's required for it to run. Let's call the sperm the wheels instead
    Wicknight wrote: »
    When it fuses with the sperm it is like having a map. You have been sitting in your car for the last 20 minutes and the wife has just popped in with a map so you finally know where you are going.

    Did your journey start then or 20 minutes ago when you got in the car.

    Arbitary.

    Your journey starts when you turn on the engine and put your foot on the accelerator. Not arbitrary. Sitting in a car waiting to find out where you're going is not a journey and and looking at a map is not a journey either


  • #103
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Well that's the argument of most pro-choice people but then you have the question of why they shouldn't have rights. Personally I think they should because they're called "human rights" and not "what JC 2K3 arbitrarily defines as a person rights"
    'because they're called "human rights"'?

    You're going to have to do better than that....

    Why is it so important to you that we confer rights on humans at conception? I think my system is more straightforward and less messy, without going so far as to destroy the fabric of our society.


  • #104
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    It is neither correct nor incorrect. It is merely an assertion made with terms that lack objective definition.

    You are asserting a new individual life begins at conception, others are asserting that life exists and merely changes form (i.e. conservation of energy, yadda yadda). What you fail to see about all this, and from points others have made previous (posts you've actually thanked which adds weight to my thoughts that you don't fully fathom what is being said) is that. It. Is. All. Arbitrary.

    You are not privy to some objective, absolute truth regarding life. The fact abortion is allowed is that the whole topic is subjective. By taking a pro-life stance in that you would wish the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion removed you are no better than a religious zealot who asserts that their subjective belief is absolute in truth over all others.

    The fact that abortion is allowed means absolutely nothing to my point. What nobody seems to get despite repeated clarification is that I am not having a debate about abortion where I'm talking about the life of the foetus, I am talking about the medical reality of when an individual life distinct from the parents comes into existence. That is not subjective, it's not up for a vote, it's not up to each individual person to decide and it has nothing to do with rights, it is one specific instant that is objectively definable by medical science


  • #105
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    'because they're called "human rights"'?

    You're going to have to do better than that....

    Why is it so important to you that we confer rights on humans at conception? I think my system is more straightforward and less messy, without going so far as to destroy the fabric of our society.

    My definition is that if it's a human being, regardless of any other considerations, it has rights. Yours places dozens of subjective and arbitrarily defined restrictions on rights that could just as easily be applied to, and have been applied in the past to black people and women. It's just the latest justification in history for the strong subjugating the weak


  • #106
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The fact that abortion is allowed means absolutely nothing to my point. What nobody seems to get despite repeated clarification is that I am not having a debate about abortion, I am talking about the medical reality of when an individual life distinct from the parents comes into existence. That is not subjective, it's not up for a vote, it's not up to each individual person to decide and it has nothing to do with rights, it is one specific instant that is objectively definable by medical science
    Abortion is killing what is medically defined as a human life at an early stage of development. I don't think anyone's disputing that. The abortion debate is about whether this is right or wrong and why.


  • #107
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Abortion is killing what is medically defined as a human life at an early stage of development. I don't think anyone's disputing that. The abortion debate is about whether this is right or wrong and why.

    Wicknight and Goduznt Xzst are disputing that and that is the only reason I am posting in this thread


  • #108
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Medical definition of life != metaphysical definition of life.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, the whole abortion debate is just one big semantic mess.


  • #109
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,840 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    But rights are all that matters.

    We kill animals for food because we don't consider them to have rights.

    As a vegetarian, I believe that animals have rights.
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    My argument is that if we don't consider humans to have rights in their early, parasitic state of existence, then there's no problem killing them.

    I believe that the change in human existence from early parasitic lifeform to full grown human isnt big enough to warrent having such a gap in the rights you should afford to each. Either humans have the same basic rights at all stages of their life or they have no rights at all.


  • #110
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I know that the zygote is mostly made up of the material of the egg but the zygote is not the egg cell

    "zygote" and "egg" are simply human classifications. The zygote is the egg cell, it doesn't have to be exactly the same for this to be true, that is just being pedantic. It is the same physical cell.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No, it's not. It's like a 2 grand computer with only half an operating system.

    Correct it is. It is exactly like that (I was going to say without an operating system at all, but it does in fact have a whole half of the gentic code already)

    The idea that when you install Windows on your new PC you have a completely different machine is nonsense. The PC is still the PC. You had a PC and now you have a PC with Windows. It is still your PC. The PC was created in Dell 2 weeks previous. You do not have a new PC as soon as you install Windows on it (or Linux or FreeBSD).

    The idea that adding genetic material to the cell fundamentally changes it into something completely different is nonsense. It was an egg cell and now it is an egg cell with a full set of genetic material, which humans classify as a zygote cell.

    As someone else said your position is like saying your light bulb only exists once you turn on the electricity.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Which sperm it gets fused with determines whether you have windows or linux.
    Which makes no difference to you having a PC. You have a PC before you do this and you have a PC after you do this.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Your journey starts when you turn on the engine and put your foot on the accelerator. Not arbitrary. Sitting in a car waiting to find out where you're going is not a journey and and looking at a map is not a journey either

    Again arbitrary. Why does your journey not start the moment you close your front door?

    You really have to stop thinking that your definitions mean something universally


  • #111
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,840 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    'because they're called "human rights"'?

    You're going to have to do better than that....

    Why is it so important to you that we confer rights on humans at conception? I think my system is more straightforward and less messy, without going so far as to destroy the fabric of our society.

    Your system results in killing babies in order to make your life easier, thats how we see it and thats why we argue that rights should be confered on humans at conception.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Your system results in killing babies in order to make your life easier, thats how we see it and thats why we argue that rights should be confered on humans at conception.

    What's wrong with making life easier?


  • #113
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I believe
    .


  • #114
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    As a vegetarian, I believe that animals have rights.
    but not plants or bacteria?

    why?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I believe that the change in human existence from early parasitic lifeform to full grown human isnt big enough to warrent having such a gap in the rights you should afford to each. Either humans have the same basic rights at all stages of their life or they have no rights at all.

    Why do humans have rights at all? What is difference between you and an oak tree?


  • #115
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Your system results in killing babies in order to make your life easier, thats how we see it and thats why we argue that rights should be confered on humans at conception.

    Why? What is wrong with killing babies?

    Serious question by the way. I have an answer, I'm just wondering have you considered yours


  • #116
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,840 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Wicknight wrote: »
    "zygote" and "egg" are simply human classifications. The zygote is the egg cell, it doesn't have to be exactly the same for this to be true, that is just being pedantic. It is the same physical cell.

    By that argument, life and death are just human classifications and to argue any differences is just being pedantic, so why imprison people for murder?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Correct it is. It is exactly like that (I was going to say without an operating system at all, but it does in fact have a whole half of the gentic code already)

    The idea that when you install Windows on your new PC you have a completely different machine is nonsense. The PC is still the PC. You had a PC and now you have a PC with Windows. It is still your PC. The PC was created in Dell 2 weeks previous. You do not have a new PC as soon as you install Windows on it (or Linux or FreeBSD).

    The idea that adding genetic material to the cell fundamentally changes it into something completely different is nonsense. It was an egg cell and now it is an egg cell with a full set of genetic material, which humans classify as a zygote cell.

    Which makes no difference to you having a PC. You have a PC before you do this and you have a PC after you do this.

    But a pc without a full operating system is just a box, an expensive paper weight. Its not until it gets a full operating system that it actually gains function and the use it was created for can be exploited. Before that you do not have the capability of using the box as pc, no functionality, no possibility to add new software or hardware without a complete operating system to install into. It is worthless as a pc without the full operating system.


  • #117
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Medical definition of life != metaphysical definition of life.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, the whole abortion debate is just one big semantic mess.
    The thing is from my perspective the metaphysical definition of life is pretty much the same as the medical one until abortion becomes involved at which point people don't like the definition and try to tack things on to exclude foetuses
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    What's wrong with making life easier?
    slavery made life easier for everyone except those whose rights were being denied
    Wicknight wrote: »
    "zygote" and "egg" are simply human classifications. The zygote is the egg cell, it doesn't have to be exactly the same for this to be true, that is just being pedantic. It is the same physical cell.



    Correct it is. It is exactly like that (I was going to say without an operating system at all, but it does in fact have a whole half of the gentic code already)

    The idea that when you install Windows on your new PC you have a completely different machine is nonsense. The PC is still the PC. You had a PC and now you have a PC with Windows. It is still your PC. The PC was created in Dell 2 weeks previous. You do not have a new PC as soon as you install Windows on it (or Linux or FreeBSD).

    The idea that adding genetic material to the cell fundamentally changes it into something completely different is nonsense. It was an egg cell and now it is an egg cell with a full set of genetic material, which humans classify as a zygote cell.

    As someone else said your position is like saying your light bulb only exists once you turn on the electricity.


    Which makes no difference to you having a PC. You have a PC before you do this and you have a PC after you do this.



    Again arbitrary. Why does your journey not start the moment you close your front door?

    You really have to stop thinking that your definitions mean something universally
    I've already explained the massive difference between an egg and a zygote several times. The difference is a medical fact and denying that does not stop it being true

    I've already explained the problems with trying to compare a foetus growing to building something which is not alive. The two are not comparable

    And I've already explained why conception is the only possible point that can be objectively pointed to as the start of a new distinct life form

    We're going around in circles. I'm out

    Maybe JC 2K3 can take over for me talking to you since he knows what I'm saying and thinks on one's even disputing the point I'm making


  • #118
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,840 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    What's wrong with making life easier?

    Why should you get to make your life easier at the expense of someone elses life?
    JC 2K3 wrote: »
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    I believe
    .

    Is there a point here? I recognise that the way i see things may not be the way everyone sees them, may noy even be the way they are, and I'm open to people who try to persuade me otherwise. Are you?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    but not plants or bacteria?

    why?

    Plants and bacteria dont have brains and nervous systems on the level of humans and animals, they are more like chemical reactions in that they are almost completely restricted to growing in the path of least resistance and have no ability to chose to do something for any reason like curiosity.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why do humans have rights at all? What is difference between you and an oak tree?

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Why? What is wrong with killing babies?

    Serious question by the way. I have an answer, I'm just wondering have you considered yours

    Personnally, I feel an immense physical repulsion to killing things, even the killing of insects makes me feel a little sick. The repulsion does rise with respect to humans, I would be more likely to save a human life than an animal life if both where in danger (so sue me :p ).
    In general though, if killing babies is ok, then killing anyone at any stage of their existence is ok as the difference between any stages is only arbitrary.


  • #119
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why should you get to make your life easier at the expense of someone elses life?

    Oh you shouldn't that would be unethical. I wouldn't want anyone to have an easier life at my expense, although that happens all the time but in the case of abortion, when you really think about it, is one making their life easier at the expense of anothers? I'm actually not able to conclusively answer that question myself but I'm beginning to incline towards no. I wasn't self aware at best at least until I was half a year old I have no memories of being alive in the womb I think due to the fact that I wasn't a fully formed being at that point. What use are rights to me at that point? I'm actually not sure and in the process of writing the post I'm back on the knife edge of pro life/pro choice I must admit.
    It would be great if their could be more than one choice.
    And you're right people need to be accountable for their actions.
    At this stage I'm rambling.

    @ Sam Vimes. The reason why I think abortion and slavery are incompatible analogies is because a slave through its conciousness is being forced to do something against its will. An aborted bunch of cells hasn't really got the same problem has it?

    @OP this thread should be clear evidence that atheists at least in this forum put quite a lot thought on things regarding ethics. I don't think you should feel threatened.


  • #120
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    robindch wrote: »
    As you wish, but I take the time of implantation as the beginning of life, and therefore, the date from which the foetus acquires human rights. I suspect I'm one of not many atheists/secularists who sets it this early.

    That was my idea but I don't stand by it too much, I don't really understand the whole thing too well anyway which is why I'm enjoying this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    It would be great if their could be more than one choice.

    Neither pro-life nor pro-choice, but pro-abortion.


Advertisement