Discussion in 'Anything and Everything not Free Rider' started by cctvcctvcctv, Feb 22, 2018.
In what stage of life do you define a developing creature a 'Human'?
it's hard to say for sure, where do you draw the line? birth seems reasonable, but before that the fetus will show human characteristics and be biologically able to respond to stuff, so it should probably be before birth; conception seems like an option, but at that point for a while it's basically going to be a non-sentient bundle of cells... point is, any argument based on drawing a line as to when a fetus becomes "human" is going to be a bit iffy.
i really recommend that you read the article i posted earlier, i think it's the best and most reasonable pro-choice argument i've seen
I haven't read it fully, but I don't like the violinist story. It's really not the same thing, and just doesn't correlate to the whole idea of abortion
I personally draw the line at the very beginning of development. What really gets me is that babies that have already started kicking are aborted.
that's fair, but
1. read the whole thing, it progressively addresses more and more of the possible counterarguments
2. if it doesn't, i can't really argue in favor of my pov unless you bring up some specific ways it's wrong
Well speaking from the violinist story, its not like having a baby is against your will. You made that choice. As well as the fact that a baby doesn't make the choice on its life. The story is making it seem like the mother was given this baby out of no where and it was plopped from the sky and she had no decision in it. Only decisions she has is to either pull the plug or save the baby, when in actual reality, she chose to create that baby.
aha! that's addressed (makes more sense in context but quoting only the directly relevant part):
"For there are cases and cases, and the details make a difference. If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.'' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army."
Tldr octo haha stop embarassing yourself imo abortions should be legal until the fetus is 20 years old, because then octos mom could still correct her mistake
Well the Francis crick institute have been given a license to test on foetus until the point they feel pain..
Well, in reality, that might not be correct some of the time, genericusername . What if the women was raped? She might not want to have the child then, as she might not be able to pay for it and it will be given up for adoption. What's worse, the rapist could come back into her life and would make make demands to be married, or just take the baby off her. Would you want to give an innocent new-born child to a man who rapes women? Who knows what else he might do? Besides, I'm not counting getting raped within marriage, and other stuff, as I don't want to go too deep into unknown territory here
Indeed, in what stage in evolution does 'Man' come into being? You could look back and say 'That's definitely an ape, and that a fish, and this a human', but if you were to go slowly through the family tree, and look at the parent of each generation, it would be hard to distinguish so clearly between one and and another. At what time does homo_sapiens finally become a thing? One can only give a rough estimate, not an exact date. Same for development of the fetus.
Edit: Had to put homo_sapiens there because it turns the first part of the word into **** lol
Well, that's all next to an evolutionary standpoint.
boxers or briefs
oh? you mean pen1s prison? No thank you
(Argument thread is making progress)
tighty whities ftw
flannel thongs or nothing if you want to be Xtreme
I'm a boxer-briefs kinda guy
Separate names with a comma.