Abortion to be outlawed by Bush in this term...

[Patroklos]

How do you reconcile a patient on life support with an embryo?

Both are deemed alive, and a very popular arguement from pro abortionists less versed than you is that the indepenace from the the mother of vehicle of support is when "human life" starts. If it can't survive alone, it is the mothers decision.

However is supporting your self is the rule, then we can expand from there. I mentioned recoveriong cases because a embryo left alone would become self sufficient eventually as well.

[Whaleboy]

There is no empirical evidence to define when human life begins. Some of you label it as such, but we who disagree with you find that just as absurd as you find religious people declaring their belief factual.

No, I said that while science has difficulty in the answer. As a side note, there is a consistent method (indeed probably more but I came home 30 minutes ago after a threesome and a lot of weed) of empirical determination but that's irrelevant for this point. Existential philosophy (which I use) does not rely upon empirical claims, it is instead phenomenological and cerebral. Which is nice .

[quote]
It is a matter of opinion, both sides.
[/quote

Bit like Nazi's and anti-Nazi's. Guess which one I call .

I would have alot more respect for you guys if you would just drop the facade and say its murder, and you are okay with that. Just like ZE and his bigotry.

I will not because abortion is not murder, by definition of murder as an act to forcibly and directly terminate the life of a [conscious being]. By my reasoning the qualification "conscious being" cannot be applied to an embryo. I use the common concept in medical ethics of lifeform, being and person here, where the termination of a lifeform is not murder, unless you consider stepping on an ant to be murder.

[Dis]

embryos are conscious!!

What? do you think they are in a coma?

[Whaleboy]

Simply because I come to a groups defense when a bigot begins calling names makes me a believer of that faith?

Which would only be relevant if I had used an ad hominem against you.

Both are deemed alive, and a very popular arguement from pro abortionists less versed than you is that the indepenace from the the mother of vehicle of support is when "human life" starts. If it can't survive alone, it is the mothers decision.

There is a reason I never resort to popular arguments because the reason they are popular is that they tend to be more holy than a papal sieve. Mine is an implimentation (all positions that rely on the conscious status premise use this in different interpretations) of the idea that there is a difference, as said before, between lifeform, being and person. Lifeform would basically here just be human DNA, we can safely say that is a human from inception, just like a drop of blood or semen, or a couple of skin cells. Being is a tricky one. Some do not make a distinction between lifeform and being and thus abortion at any stage to them is murder. I do not concur. To me it is the perception of a lifeform as conscious by others using consistent, though subjective (case context) empirical means (hence my previous statement). Person is basically an extension of cogito ergo sum.

So you see, calling it "murder" relies on assumptions about murder, and further reasoning as a premise to the former assumptions! You cannot bander about emotive terms in some vain hope to be taken seriously through a combination of forceful language and testicular rhetoric.

However is supporting your self is the rule, then we can expand from there. I mentioned recoveriong cases because a embryo left alone would become self sufficient eventually as well

No, effectively it has the same value as a parasite, since it is consuming the womans resources. After a point is reached however, I think it becomes a case of the woman being responsible for it, but that requires it to be a being. Hence, I do not support abortions late in pregnancy.

[Elok]

The question of when human life begins is too...existential to be scientifically answered. So an embryo is just a lump of cells; so? A full-grown person is just a bigger, more complex lump of cells. Is there a scientific way to determine the meaning of life or something?

It should be perfectly obvious that no person who believes abortion is murder can, in good conscience, sit back and allow it to continue, out of "respect for the moral beliefs of others." That's not open-mindedness, it's thinly disguised cowardice. If you think somebody is dying, you have a personal obligation to stop it. If you oppose that position, so be it, but this is not the kind of issue that can be "solved" by trying to kill one's own conscience for the sake of social cohesion. That's patently ridiculous.

[Patroklos]

phenomenological and cerebral

That is nice, so opnion it is.

So when does that conciousness start? What day? What hour? Hell what second? We are talkina about people making arbitrary judgements about when in a pregnancy it is okay to abort, and when not. Unless you define "human life" as birth, which is absurd, then you risk at any time maybe killing a concious being. Murder.

We do not apply such a mindless deadline for life to anything else (brain dead probobly, have to look into the laws for that) because you might **** it up.

[Whaleboy]

I broadly concur, but for the sake of consistency, I would ask you this...

If you think somebody is dying, you have a personal obligation to stop it.

Why?

That's not a loaded question, I concur with you but I would seek your reasoning behind that.

[Zulu Elephant]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I like people who quote southpark and then try to talk about medical evidence.

lol. that a point well taken

As far as abortion all you can get with "medical evidence" is when actual life starts or when the organism is independant of the host. We are talking human life, which ther is no medical evidence to back up because it is an abstract none physical thing.

So since you are all about medical evidence, go run around hospitals and unplug life support, even for those who could recover, because that is what your medical faith tells you is okay.

You're right, science doesn't provide all answers since the point at which the foetus becomes human is an abstract principle. If someone provides philosophical reasons (philosophy being rational and reasoned) rather than religious reasons (which are not) then I can respect their opinion

And while I am religious, not one of my arguements against abortion had ever included religion. Cute though.

Then the laughter would not be directed at you since you have come to your position through reason and logic. I can respect that.

I was simply saying that presuming that religion is right and can be applied to ethical questions like this is a leap of faith - That is no more valid than, say...making a leap of faith that the taller you are, the more correct you are. If I made that leap and said "im the tallest and i think abortion is ok", I would expect to be laughed at.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I came home 30 minutes ago after a threesome and a lot of weed)

[Whaleboy]

That is nice, so opnion it is.

As opposed to? Do you consider opinion insufficient, or are you trying to play relativism in order to sidestep the debate? Well when it comes to relativism, you can't misuse it in a debate with me and get away, so I would ask you to defend your view, since this is a loaded context where a solution is possible, and thus a neutral debate becomes a crucible.

[/quote]

So when does that conciousness start? What day? What hour? Hell what second? We are talkina about people making arbitrary judgements about when in a pregnancy it is okay to abort, and when not. Unless you define "human life" as birth, which is absurd, then you risk at any time maybe killing a concious being. Murder.
[/quote]

So who said anything about arbitrary? Are you saying that the mere potential for consciousness is sufficient to be considered conscious? How, pray tell, does that work?

You rely on universalised terms but doubt of others in this debate is almost as important as empirical determination!

We do not apply such a mindless deadline for life to anything else (brain dead probobly, have to look into the laws for that) because you might **** it up.

So first, opinion, and now you want to look at the law? Think I'll pass thankyou . This is a debate about ethics, and unless you can provide a reasonable argument that law == ethics I'm not going to warm to the idea.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Tip: Remove the seeds from your bud and use them when rolling your male friends joint. God I'm an evil bastard!!

[Japher]

My little sister aborted a trisomy-18 child, and I think it was the right thing to do. She is now pregnant with a healthy girl and is due in February.

They can't tell if it is healthy until the end of the 1st trimester, somethings not until the beginning of the 2nd. The child she lost I know she still mourns. However, the child was not going to make it to term; evident by the fact that it had no skull. However, if she was to carry it to term my sister may not of been able to have the girl she is carrying now.

They plan to name it Brinlee.

What kind of name is that?!

[Whaleboy]

Go Japher's sister!!

And no abortion is not easy to deal with, it's often not an easy choice and there is no clean break afterwards. But it is an option that people decide in context, in their own situations. Surely reason enough to keep it legal is the choice between a professional, clean clinical environment with patient support, or a cross-eyed Albanian medical school dropout in a dusty back room with a coat hanger, because abortions will happen regardless of what the law says.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Elok
The question of when human life begins is too...existential to be scientifically answered. So an embryo is just a lump of cells; so? A full-grown person is just a bigger, more complex lump of cells. Is there a scientific way to determine the meaning of life or something?

It should be perfectly obvious that no person who believes abortion is murder can, in good conscience, sit back and allow it to continue, out of "respect for the moral beliefs of others." That's not open-mindedness, it's thinly disguised cowardice. If you think somebody is dying, you have a personal obligation to stop it. If you oppose that position, so be it, but this is not the kind of issue that can be "solved" by trying to kill one's own conscience for the sake of social cohesion. That's patently ridiculous.

I'm not a moral person. This is why I allow it to continue. There is nothing I can do about it.

[Whaleboy]

Diss... I suppose it all depends on the importance people assign to their opinions. Some as an art, some as a mission. Anyway, I shall leave on that note, tired, sore and I have the munchies