The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[bshoc]

To bshoc, you really are an idiot

First, as Brogan said what the fuck does Godwin's Law have to do with anything on this thread?
Second, all you have done this entire thread to support your case is give us some crap about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which seems to have little relevance to abortion and its ethical ramifications.
Finally, I said it earlier and I'll say it again:

LEARN TO FUCKING SPELL!!!!!!!!!

Thats nice.

But please do not stop on my insistance, I mean you're obviosuly afraid of a higher mind, and are incapable of understanding Arrow's Theorem or indeed that most of case was not argued on it. In fact Not-That-Bright is the one who keeps bringing up arrows theorem, my case has been argued on non-baby-killing logic.

 

[bshoc]

And I seriously doubt that people like me are responsible for the current lax in abortion laws, that falls on subversive judges and radical activists, who are tahnkfully dying off.

 

[bshoc]

bshoc, explain this.

Get brogan to explain it for you since he's the author, last i checked we were talking about the useless slaughter of unborn human babies, not the killing of fully grown lower farm animal varieties for food.

 

[bshoc]

As brogan said, you have inconsistent logic.

Your argument is wrong.

To the logical person:

The purposeless slaugher or human babies

as opposed to

The purposeful slaugher of livestock

I dont know about you, I tend to look out for my own species first of all.

 

[bshoc]

Who gives a fuck, you still have shitty, inconsistent logic. Therefore, your argument is wrong.

Now, run along.

My logic is flawless, you comments are invalid, and last time I checked you've failed to even present a case.

"You're wrong" just doesent cut it when you've already failed before you start.

You run along, you're the vet afterall.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Thats nice.

But please do not stop on my insistance, I mean you're obviosuly afraid of a higher mind, and are incapable of understanding Arrow's Theorem or indeed that most of case was not argued on it. In fact Not-That-Bright is the one who keeps bringing up arrows theorem, my case has been argued on non-baby-killing logic.

A higher mind? So what simply because you're situated at a higher altitude that means you're superior to me? Learn to speak good, idiot...

Non-baby-killing logic? Please I would be interested in your responses to the following questions:

1) How do you define life and what reasoning/evidence is this definition based on?

2) What is your definition of murder and again, what is the reasoning/evidence for such a definition?

3) Rather than just quoting Wikipedia verbatim, please explain the link between Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and the issue of abortion legislation.

 

[Serius]

Then we should also abort because mothers often suffer post-partum depression and may harm their children. If you are against abortion then it still seems illogical to say someone does not deserve to live because of who their parent was - if there were no messed up genes or rape involved. Also, religion seems to argue more against the act of incest...I don't remember it saying anything about the foetuses derived from it not having the right to 'live'.

If the mother might harm the child, thats even more reason to take it off her and give it to the father

Who says i was against abortion?

To me abortions are in some cases a necessary evil

I didnt say an embryo has no right to live based on who its parents are, and i am not even sure an embryo classifies as life so it doesnt exactly have a right to live

an act commited in crime means the father basically voids his right to the child.

so in the case of a pregnancy formed by incest, then the father gets no say in the case of abortion as incest is a crime, hence the choice wether to abort or not is completely up to the mother. I did not say the embro has no right to live based on who its parents are, i said the father should not have a say in the situation even if the mother wishes to abort.

Um, look at the pros and cons of the situation...

Cons - (during pregnancy) constant peeing, the sicking up, back ache, diet restrictions, swollen ankles and (depending on big she gets)inability to drive safely, maternity leave which only covers a portion of the time she is pregnant, (after birth) possible postpartum depression, scars from caesarians, restricted social life, income problems because you can't work full time as a single parent, the responsibility of constantly supervising another human being etc.
Pros - single pay out from the government, a centrelink supplement, and some money from the father.

I'd be questioning why any woman would be 'missing a few because she wants a handout down the track'. Pregnacies/parenthood isn't always as severe as I've outlined but still...

I will tell you why, because women are illogical manipulative bitches with a psychological drive to have children. You may not have exprienced this yet because of your age, but alot of women complain about a physical ache or pain around 30ish [ usually simply called her clock is ticking] and a deep seated desire for children. Even if this is comlpetely illogical and will not fit into her life plan, the desire is still there.

And the legal system and the government will make sure she is financially secure if she chooses this path, at the expense of the father and other tax payers ofcourse. Please, dont quote pregnancy symptoms to me, i know far more about it than i want to and i know you are crapping on, so lets keep it realistic shall we? because i dont feel like pointing out the chances of even half of those symptoms being experienced.

To Serius, kami has already pointed this out but do you really think that women get pregant just so they can get a few thousand dollars from the government? I'd hate to be your future wife....


To bshoc, you really are an idiot

First, as Brogan said what the fuck does Godwin's Law have to do with anything on this thread?
Second, all you have done this entire thread to support your case is give us some crap about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which seems to have little relevance to abortion and its ethical ramifications.
Finally, I said it earlier and I'll say it again:

LEARN TO FUCKING SPELL!!!!!!!!!

If the pregnant woman was my wife, there wouldnt be an issue, we are talking about abortions and seperations here. Women get pregnant for a variety of reasons, most of which i will never comprehend. If the father is no longer with the mother than the outcome is always the same, the father pays a significant portion of his income to the mother for 18 years, and gets minimal, if any rights to his child, but that is not what this thread is about and i have no idea why kami derailed this thread down that path.

 

[Generator]

I will tell you why, because women are illogical manipulative bitches with a psychological drive to have children. You may not have exprienced this yet because of your age, but alot of women complain about a physical ache or pain around 30ish [ usually simply called her clock is ticking] and a deep seated desire for children. Even if this is comlpetely illogical and will not fit into her life plan, the desire is still there.

You don't like women, do you, Serius?

You may not have exprienced this yet because of your age

After reading this I couldn't help but laugh - not only are you from the HSC year as kami, but you yourself are hardly in a position to have experienced what you consider to be 'fact'.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Oh, fantastic Serius, you've managed to point out one spelling mistake in my entire post, round of applause to you my friend. Yes, I made an issue out of it but it centred around bshoc's consistent and obvious errors rather than erroneous typing mistakes.

I also second Generator's comments as to your attitude towards women. Like I said, I'd hate to be your wife if this is what you think of women:

women are illogical manipulative bitches with a psychological drive to have children...

Bitter, much?

 

[BradCube]

Ok after viewing this site I'll retract the fact that the foetus does not grow (it undergoes cellular division which is technically considered growth). Although at this stage I would argue it still does not have human form in any way and thus cannot be considered alive.

What is human form, and at what point can we possible distinguish on this basis when it becomes human? Again, looking at the extent of adult compared to baby, both are of different form yet are considered human. I see no difference in comaring baby, to cells which are human in life.

In regards to metabolism it cannot undergo metabolism because there is no input of energy prior to its attachment to the uterus.
Also, as per the above site, the time from conception to attachment in the uterus is 4 days not 7-10 as was previously stated.

Still interested in the metabolism side of things. Some posters before suggested that it was like the egg of a chicken that already had energy for cells to use. Also does not the division of cells/growth need energy? This is not so much a rebuttal but actually information I would really like to know.

In either case I think most abortions happen after 4 days by which time the featus has attatched to the wall of the uterus and is now scientifically classified as living.

Well, again, it comes back to legislation. If we are to legislate that abortion of a foetus at this stage is illegal then, for matters of consistency it must be considered that the killing of animals is equally illegal as there is absolutely nothing to distinguish the two at this point.

I'm not so much interested in what we should apply to law, but am purley arguing on the basis of moral consistency, rather than legislative.

Also if you are stating that there is nothing to seperate animals and fetus then surley the same could be argued for a newborn baby?

First, in regards to pain, it comes back to a legislative issue. For reasons mentioned above, if the Government were to legislate that abortion was illegal at any earlier point in the foetuses development it would be inconsistent or unjustified.

Inconsistant in comparison to what? If it is other life forms eg animals, than it is inconsistant. If it is humans, than it is also inconsistant since we still regard it as murder even if someone cannot feel the pain of being killed.

I think I may have just mis-interpretted what you were saying here so some clarification would be fantastic.

 

[BradCube]

I will tell you why, because women are illogical manipulative bitches with a psychological drive to have children.

I am amazed at how much I can agree and disagree with this one sentence. lol.

 

[Serius]

wow two replys and no real rebutal to any of my arguments. fantastic.

She asked me a question, i gave her the reason not my fault that its harsh

My attitude has nothing to do with this debate fyi i am not really bitter, but someone close to me has been roped in by a needy woman before and its a touchy subject. Ofcourse not many women are like that, buts its those ones that you come accross once in your life that will ruin the years ahead.

 

[kami]

If the mother might harm the child, thats even more reason to take it off her and give it to the father

My statement regarding post-partum leads on from your earlier declaration:

I would prefer to see an abortion done than to read in the paper about a mother smothering her baby 9 months later.

Who says i was against abortion?

I interpreted your stance as being such, my apologies if I was incorrect.

You may not have exprienced this yet because of your age

lol

And the legal system and the government will make sure she is financially secure if she chooses this path, at the expense of the father and other tax payers ofcourse. Please, dont quote pregnancy symptoms to me, i know far more about it than i want to and i know you are crapping on, so lets keep it realistic shall we? because i dont feel like pointing out the chances of even half of those symptoms being experienced.

As my post acknowledges, women will not always experience a pregnancy such as that outlined however that is part of what they risk. Further, I'm sure you are quite aware that the issues outlined aren't that rare but as you seem quite avid in maintaining the relevance of this discussion to abortion I won't go through that in any greater depth here. Feel free to discuss it privately with me if you have any disagreements that you must air.

i have no idea why kami derailed this thread down that path.

Since you suggested what you felt would be an appopriate modification to the abortion laws based on parental rights and motivations I then questioned your assessment of a mothers motivations in your post.

She asked me a question, i gave her the reason not my fault that its harsh

No women have asked you any question in the last few pages Serius.

 

[sam04u]

Lol, what else do you expect from people like serius who live in the 'gong'. Centrelink Loving, Ill-educated, Ill-mannered, Incestuous, Indecent, Disrespectful, Nazi'st, Elitist, FASCIST, asswipes. (and annorexic, bulimic, obsessive compulsive disorder'd from the girls).

Lol, who will be able to unravel the mysteries of the people from the secluded 2 hr train ride area of the GONG! LOL

 

[_dhj_]

Lol, what else do you expect from people like serius who live in the 'gong'. Centrelink Loving, Ill-educated, Ill-mannered, Incestuous, Indecent, Disrespectful, Nazi'st, Elitist, FASCIST, asswipes. (and annorexic, bulimic, obsessive compulsive disorder'd from the girls).

Lol, who will be able to unravel the mysteries of the people from the secluded 2 hr train ride area of the GONG! LOL

Hey don't knock the Gong. Saying that Serius is a typical gong resident is very insulting to all those whove ever lived there...

 

[Generator]

wow two replys and no real rebutal to any of my arguments. fantastic.

I will tell you why, because women are illogical manipulative bitches with a psychological drive to have children.

That isn't an argument, Serius - it's rubbish, and you know it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It, in itself can be demostrated quite easily, so if a practical refutation is what you're after, these are it:

I already provided a practical refutation.

that every person has their own set of infinetely variable ordered preferences, and neither the orders of these preferences, or indeed the theoratical utilitarian weight an indavidual places on these preferenes can be in any way related or compared to another

In technical terms, it neglects the so-called "ordinality" assumption because it does not treat strong preferences equivalently to weak preferences

A part of arrow's theorem is ordinality...

Ordinality: The choice function must neglect all "intensity" information.
In other words, only "ordinal" information may affect the choice.

Under utilitarianism you can get all the numbers from each individual person as to how happy they feel they would be, thus 'solving' the problem.

doing this at the expense of anothers theoratical "utility" is an utter fallacy.

How so?

 

[The Brucemaster]

What is human form, and at what point can we possible distinguish on this basis when it becomes human? Again, looking at the extent of adult compared to baby, both are of different form yet are considered human. I see no difference in comaring baby, to cells which are human in life.

Yeah, good point. I guess once the foetus possesses all the anatomical features of a human.

Still interested in the metabolism side of things. Some posters before suggested that it was like the egg of a chicken that already had energy for cells to use. Also does not the division of cells/growth need energy? This is not so much a rebuttal but actually information I would really like to know.

I'm not too sure about whether the division of cells needs energy, although now that I think about it it's rather likely but even so the foetus (technically blastocyte at the stage before it enters the uterus) does not have any discernible humanity at this stage.

In either case I think most abortions happen after 4 days by which time the featus has attatched to the wall of the uterus and is now scientifically classified as living.

Yes, most, if not all, would agree the foetus is living at this stage i guess but the more important question is whether or not it is discernably human in any way.

I'm not so much interested in what we should apply to law, but am purley arguing on the basis of moral consistency, rather than legislative.

Well, moral consistency can never be achieved and the original purpose of the thread was to discuss the issue of abortion legislation.

Also if you are stating that there is nothing to seperate animals and fetus then surley the same could be argued for a newborn baby?

Well, technically no but humans have a funny way of seeing their own lives as sacred and once a person is born the 'sanctity of life' must be protected. The point is that once a person is born there is no doubt as to their humanity thus there is a difference, even if it is only a perceived one.

Inconsistant in comparison to what? If it is other life forms eg animals, than it is inconsistant. If it is humans, than it is also inconsistant since we still regard it as murder even if someone cannot feel the pain of being killed.

Inconsistent in regards to a definition of life. If we legislate that abortion is murder at a point where there is no difference between life forms save that one is human and another is not then, by that definition it must also be murder to kill animals.

 

[*Minka*]

Then take the pill, calendar chart, tie ur tubes etc.? Every risk has its consequences, if the woman cant accept the risk, she shouldnt be sleeping around. AND YES ITS BLAME EVERYTHING ON THE WOMAN BECUASE MEN AREN'T THE ONES WHO GET PREGNANT.

It takes two people for a pregnancy to occur so the blame should not be placed soley on the woman. Why don't you tell men to take some responsbility of their own as well? I don't sleep around, but do have sex in stable relationships and things can happen. I take the pill, use a condom, but if something went wrong, ti is my right to obtain an abortion. Simple.

 

[*Minka*]

For the record:

Insulting all women does little more than make you look like an asshole chauvinist with no respect for people. It also makes me not take you seriously at all and your statements are generalisations with no merit to them.