Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Alinestra Covelia]

Actually, on closer reflection of the posts here, I would have to alter my stance towards the death penalty.

I am not against it for any reason of morality as far as killing a guilty and/or deservant human is concerned. The reason why I oppose the death penalty is that humans who act as judges and juries are fallible, and therefore a death penalty will place the suspect in a state from which he or she can never be retrieved or pardoned.

If some legal establishment revolution or development arose, after which we could say with 100% accuracy that we can deduce the truth of a person's guilt or innocence, then I would say that the death penalty's greatest obstacle would be removed (ie the accidental killing of an innocent). Of course, this may also very well remove all need for the death penalty anyway, since any potential criminal would know that his or her guilt would surface regardless. In my opinion, the knowledge of getting caught is even more effective a deterrent than the threat of death.

So I am against it because of logistical problems, not primarily through moral problems. If I were to be executed tomorrow, I would be pretty unhappy about it, but I don't pretend that it would signal a crushing blow to the morality of the future human race.

[Anodyne]

I support abortion, for many reasons:
1. Like said before many times; embryos are not capable of surviving without their hosts. We cannot say when they develop to be humans, or even develop far enough that we can say they'll survive for the rest of pregnancy (many miscarriages occur without the woman even being aware of them).
2. It's the woman's choice, and men shouldn't have the right of denying them of it. Alistreia (hopefully not misspelled ) had good points of this, I won't plagiarize her.
3. If the abortions weren't allowed, many women would still do them. And we know that home-abortions are extremely dangerous. Better to have it done Ãn clean, sterile environment at the hands of doctors.

Number 1 is really unimportant, 2 and 3 are my main points. Of course, abortion is rarely a good thing, and should never be done too late.. I wonder what's the legal limit for it... 8-12 weeks? Well, I'm sure that's close to how it should be.
But abortion is still often a better choice than having a child born unwanted, growing in a negative environment, becoming a criminal, etc...


For death penalty, I'm AGAINST it.
Main point being that if a society wants to deem violence unacceptable, it's completely inlogic and hypocritical to practice the most malicious form of violence itself. Eye for an eye etc... bullsh!t. And in America, it's even more pervert; having all the eyes gazing at the one being murdered (uh...executed if you prefer), the humiliation. Neckshot behind the sauna (eg. outside public) would be the most humane (if we can use the word "humane" here) way of execution.

[Elucidus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Reading your previous post, I didn't think you cared if it had a brain or not.

When did I say I didn't care if it had a brain? I said an inkling of 50 or 80 human cells is what didn't matter. I would assume that it would not have a brain at that point, as that would be very early in development.

I am sorry I didn't spell it out clearly.

I agree that a child (I use child on purpose) is better off not to have existed than to be severely neglected, abused, or raised as a criminal from the start.

I would also have to say that a child is better off not being born if it is incapable of coherent thought or being severely mentally retarded. What kind of quality of life is that? I know I have a living will if such an tragedy were to happen to me.

[DarkCloud]

Argument: Hopefully a Damning one

The fact that they *could* be born and that they actually do already exist as formed creatures- soon to become human beings- Makes them human.

Logically, they will be born, and be humans if the natural process is carried out to its end.

To kill a child before he becomes an adult and can reason is murder
To kill a baby before he becomes a child and can think is murder
Thus, to kill the unborn before they can breathe is murder.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Elucidus
When did I say I didn't care if it had a brain? I said an inkling of 50 or 80 human cells is what didn't matter.

Right here: Well a fetus (SP?) is not a living thing of its own accord until what the third trimester? Meaning if it is removed from the mother's womb it cannot survive on it's own. Well in that respect I don't think it is murder.

FYI, I was wrong earlier. Apparently, brain waves can be reliably measured at a month and a half after conception.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ade
I support abortion, for many reasons:
1. Like said before many times; embryos are not capable of surviving without their hosts. We cannot say when they develop to be humans, or even develop far enough that we can say they'll survive for the rest of pregnancy (many miscarriages occur without the woman even being aware of them).
2. It's the woman's choice, and men shouldn't have the right of denying them of it. Alistreia (hopefully not misspelled ) had good points of this, I won't plagiarize her.
3. If the abortions weren't allowed, many women would still do them. And we know that home-abortions are extremely dangerous. Better to have it done Ãn clean, sterile environment at the hands of doctors.

#3 is a non-issue.
If the abortion is merely done for "convienence" the woman deserves to die- she shouldn't have been messing around anyway.
In fact, it is illegal, thus, she should be imprisoned and face the peanlties.

#2 I would think that it would be the baby's choice.

Number 1 is really unimportant, 2 and 3 are my main points. Of course, abortion is rarely a good thing, and should never be done too late.. I wonder what's the legal limit for it... 8-12 weeks? Well, I'm sure that's close to how it should be.
But abortion is still often a better choice than having a child born unwanted, growing in a negative environment, becoming a criminal, etc...

Actually this argument is the only one I support.
And this could be solved if the governmetn could better care for babies and take the babies from the mothers while fining them 10% of their wages each year or something of the sort.

This would cut down on ''messing around'' and other such things.

For death penalty, I'm AGAINST it.
Main point being that if a society wants to deem violence unacceptable, it's completely inlogic and hypocritical to practice the most malicious form of violence itself. Eye for an eye etc... bullsh!t. And in America, it's even more pervert; having all the eyes gazing at the one being murdered (uh...executed if you prefer), the humiliation. Neckshot behind the sauna (eg. outside public) would be the most humane (if we can use the word "humane" here) way of execution.

At least with the death penalty- the condemned deserve their execution. I am against it yes, but only because it is not profitable enough.
They should televise it and make money- then I would support it.
As it is I only support killing mentally insane murderers because they are no help to anyone in society and are not turly good humans or even capable of being good. They are as bad as the crazed dog in a brood who is killled by his associates because he has gone mad and is amenace.
The condemend deserve giving back to the community in some way.

[November Adam]

Ugh... why does no one respond to my post!!

First of all to be a human, you don't have to be born. You are a member of our species apon conception.

Reason: The biological life cycle conssits of stages, each one different from the other, yet all belonging to the same individual.

Loinburger, I believe you mentioned that an embryo does not resemble a human, thus it is not. I say this is irrelevant, as a cattepillar does not resemble a butterfly, but they are the same species.

Mammals have evolved the ability to carry their young internally well they develop. Thus allowing them the ability to move around, if they need to. Birds, reptiles, and fish lay eggs, this is something they found useful. Regardless of the method, the individual within it's mother, or within it's egg, is developing the structure it needs to surivive in the world. This does not change the fact that there is an individual there, regardless of it's current developmental stage.

If you kill a frog at the stage in which it is a tadpole, or in the stage in which it is a "frog", the end result is still the same, Kermit is dead.

Now will someone please respond to this, cause if they don't I will assume that I am correct and no one can rebute this and all of their statements that an embryo, is not "human", will be incorrect.

[Gibsie]

Well, that's all well and fine if you think that simply having human DNA and being a distinct individual is enough to deserve protection under the law. But if you do, when you protest abortion, you're looking at the small picture- far more zygotes, embryoes and foetuses die before birth without any additional help than are killed in clinics. (this is because up to and possibly more than 2/3 of zygotes fail to implant into the womb in the first place).

If, on the other hand, you think the disposition of proper thought (which Tom got quite accurate in his guess of 4-5 months. Before that it's like having a radio on but not having it tuned to a station. Alternatively people may decide upon more arbitrary rulings, such as the ability to survive on your own. Seems about as stupid to me as saying you'd allow abortion in cases of rape or incest. Whatever.) is what makes human deserving of legal protection, then your points don't really matter Novermber Adam.

Regardless, why is there so much loaded terminology in this thread? Referring to a foetus to or as if it's a parasite is ghastly, and wrong (Scientifically, not morally- you can't parasite another member of your own species, to nitpick ), just as calling it an "unborn child" is.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by November Adam
Ugh... why does no one respond to my post!!

Be patient! I've been out of town for the weekend, visiting my family for Easter, and have been too busy beating my father in ping-pong to get online until now.

Loinburger do you mind if I wade into the embryo human issue?

By all means. I'm not averse to debating the issue so long as I'm not debating with a brick wall, and in past debates you've shown that you're pretty reasonable.

I will agree with you that an embryo does have a parsitic relationship with the mother. So what.

My argument is that a necessary precondition for being "human" is the ability to live independently of a host (as defined by a biological parasite-host relationship, not as defined by any of the social constructs that Blackice has continually brought up), and that before this is possible the organism in question is "pre-human", or "non-human."

As I'm sure you are well aware a biological organism has a life cylce. The human lifecycle starts as an embryo. Regardless of being "alive", or able to live independently, this is how it starts for the species known as homo sapien.

Agreed. Nobody has ever become human without first going through an embryonic stage.

Blood cells, brain cells, and stem cells are NOT human, rather parts of a human. An embryo is a human that at it's state in it's life cycle consists of 1, then 2, then 4, then 8...... cells.

There's where I disagree. I'd argue that until it is capable of living independently of its host, an embryo is no more "human" than blood cells, brain cells, and stem cells. The fact that the embryo is a "pre-human" while blood, brain, and stem cells are not is irrelevant, as "pre-human" also implies "non-human."

First of all to be a human, you don't have to be born. You are a member of our species apon conception.

That's where the disagreement lies.

If you kill a frog at the stage in which it is a tadpole, or in the stage in which it is a "frog", the end result is still the same, Kermit is dead.

On the contrary, Kermit was never alive. Kermit is a frog, not a tadpole, so killing a tadpole that will turn into Kermit is different from killing a frog that is Kermit. However, I'd rather not debate this point as a tadpole-frog relation is not analogous to an embryo-human relation: a tadpole is not parasitic.

[Tom201]

This does not change the fact that there is an individual there, regardless of it's current developmental stage.

The developmental stage makes some diffrence. As I pointed out in my previous post:

What defines a human is that he has a brain, have thoughts going thru his mind, is intelligent (or at least could be ), etc.

Everything else like reproducing, eat, etc. can also performed by an animal.

Therefor lifeforms without a brain are not human.
Now go thru the development chain.
Sperm - no brain - not human
egg - no brain - not human
bunch of cells - no brain - not human
...
than somewhere in the process, Im not sure but I think it was 4. or 5. month pregnancy the unborn child is starting to develop a brain. voila we have a human being.

Therefor bevor this status all that is killed is a alife but not a human being. The moral issue is similar to killing an animal.
I can support killing animals for the benefit of the mother.

Why did noone really (other than argue about the time the brain develops) respond? I assume because Im correct and no one can rebute this and all of their statements that an embryo is "human" will be incorrect

[DarkCloud]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Tom201

This does not change the fact that there is an individual there, regardless of it's current developmental stage.

The developmental stage makes some diffrence. As I pointed out in my previous post:

DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE DOES NOT MATTER-"
The fact that they *could* be born and that they actually do already exist as formed creatures- soon to become human beings- Makes them human.

Logically, they will be born, and be humans if the natural process is carried out to its end.

To kill a child before he becomes an adult and can reason is murder
To kill a baby before he becomes a child and can think is murder
Thus, to kill the unborn before they can breathe is murder."

Therefor lifeforms without a brain are not human.
Now go thru the development chain.
Sperm - no brain - not human
egg - no brain - not human
bunch of cells - no brain - not human
...
than somewhere in the process, Im not sure but I think it was 4. or 5. month pregnancy the unborn child is starting to develop a brain. voila we have a human being.

Therefor bevor this status all that is killed is a alife but not a human being. The moral issue is similar to killing an animal.
I can support killing animals for the benefit of the mother.
[/q]

Why did noone really (other than argue about the time the brain develops) respond? I assume because Im correct and no one can rebute this and all of their statements that an embryo is "human" will be incorrect

Ah, but you see- They all lead to human life and if there is no problem- they will create human life- thus they should be considered human because if nature is allowed to take its course (barring miscarriages) the child will be born.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Gibsie
Well, that's all well and fine if you think that simply having human DNA and being a distinct individual is enough to deserve protection under the law. But if you do, when you protest abortion, you're looking at the small picture- far more zygotes, embryoes and foetuses die before birth without any additional help than are killed in clinics. (this is because up to and possibly more than 2/3 of zygotes fail to implant into the womb in the first place).

Ah but on the other hand, more people die of natural deaths, than being killed, yet people should protest the murders still.

If, on the other hand, you think the disposition of proper thought (which Tom got quite accurate in his guess of 4-5 months. Before that it's like having a radio on but not having it tuned to a station. Alternatively people may decide upon more arbitrary rulings, such as the ability to survive on your own. Seems about as stupid to me as saying you'd allow abortion in cases of rape or incest. Whatever.) is what makes human deserving of legal protection, then your points don't really matter Novermber Adam.

Regardless, why is there so much loaded terminology in this thread? Referring to a foetus to or as if it's a parasite is ghastly, and wrong (Scientifically, not morally- you can't parasite another member of your own species, to nitpick ), just as calling it an "unborn child" is.

Basically what I'm getting at is that an embryo IS a member of the homo sapien species. We have decided that humans when in it's embryotic stage are to have no legal protections.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by loinburger


Be patient! I've been out of town for the weekend, visiting my family for Easter, and have been too busy beating my father in ping-pong to get online until now.

Sorry, just tried this line of reasoning in another thread and it wasn't responded to, so I was getting ansy.

By all means. I'm not averse to debating the issue so long as I'm not debating with a brick wall, and in past debates you've shown that you're pretty reasonable.

You must have me mixed up with someone else!

My argument is that a necessary precondition for being "human" is the ability to live independently of a host (as defined by a biological parasite-host relationship, not as defined by any of the social constructs that Blackice has continually brought up), and that before this is possible the organism in question is "pre-human", or "non-human."

But, by what basis is this definition made? Why does intellect, or ability to live independently have to occur to be "human"? As Blackice has brought up regarding socialogical dependence, why could this not extend to biological dependence? Why does the stage in a species' development dictate whether it is to me considered a member of that species?

Agreed. Nobody has ever become human without first going through an embryonic stage.

That's not what I said

There's where I disagree. I'd argue that until it is capable of living independently of its host, an embryo is no more "human" than blood cells, brain cells, and stem cells. The fact that the embryo is a "pre-human" while blood, brain, and stem cells are not is irrelevant, as "pre-human" also implies "non-human."

Again, I ask on what basis is this stance justified? It sounds as if it is not based on sound reasoning. For the reason I stated regarding life cycles.

On the contrary, Kermit was never alive. Kermit is a frog, not a tadpole, so killing a tadpole that will turn into Kermit is different from killing a frog that is Kermit. However, I'd rather not debate this point as a tadpole-frog relation is not analogous to an embryo-human relation: a tadpole is not parasitic.

Sure Kermit was alive... Kermit the tadpole...

But there is a similarity, a tadpole is one stage of a frog's life cycle, as is an embryo, and fetus in ours, the difference is in as you stated, that the tadpole is not dependent on it's parents.
So humans are to be faulted for the fact that we have evolved in such a way that we are dependent on our mother in our early stages. This was supposed to be of benifit for our survival, but now it is becoming a hinderance it would seem.

[blackice]

Maybe your points were valid the first time you made them.

No they were valid the first time and each time after, you ignored them...You are calling the kettle black here you have admitted to continued examples and arguements. Now someone else is doing the same thing with more on topic less obtuse examples and you whine...lol...

Bald assertions don't work. You must first show that a fetus is the same as a human.

No I have pointed out a human it will be... I need not show it is the same as it is not...The point is it will be which brings us back to at what age do YOU consider killing a human is right...

Then the burden of proof lies with the side that is making the assertion.

whimpy do all you half wits us this as a reason to justify your denial and stupidity?

But you have to show the proof.

Give it nine months you half wit Which is the point and the only point. I can kill it because it can not say no? It will be a human is a fact period.

There are benefits to abortion

There are benifits to killing my next door nieghbors dog too...It s*its on my lawn but amazingly it is NOT human and is against the law to do so...

embryos are not capable of surviving without their hosts.

Paraplaegic invalids are not either do we kill them too?

It's the woman's choice, and men shouldn't have the right of denying them of it.

If men do not want the child can they kill it too?

For death penalty, I'm AGAINST it.

It is ok to kill a potential human or a human that can not defend themselves but not ok to kill one that is able to do so? Twisted logic at best...

First of all to be a human, you don't have to be born. You are a member of our species apon conception.

November they do not answer this because it is fact undenialble fact...

By all means. I'm not averse to debating the issue so long as I'm not debating with a brick wall

A brick wall who has said the same thing...Yes I am consistant and a brick wall... your arguement was lame from the onset...

My argument is that a necessary precondition for being "human" is the ability to live independently of a host

Back to the brick wall so what are invalid quadraplegic, mentally challenged PEOPLE disposable your arguement is lame. From the onset you refuse to address this very flaw of your reasoning. You then mask your ineptness by this deceit of "I will not argue with a brick wall" BS.

"pre-human" again lame... "prehuman" "prohuman" "lamehuman" You maybe lame but you are still a human

I'd argue that until it is capable of living independently

You sound like a broken record, speaking of brick walls... What about "humans" that live at can not live independatly of others...like you?

I usually take it as a compliment, as in "My post must have been so extraordinarily intelligent, nobody was able to come up with a reasonable response to it."

No you take exception to someone with an opposing view obviously. At this point you have made you only point two times...THIRTEEN TIMES AFTER THIS talk about a brick wall...I made mine 6 times...you cop out "obtuse" six other people have made the same points...Are we all "obtuse" but you

You have to answer to the facts a human is a human...if they can exsist on thier own is neither here nor there. Would you kill a dependant child? It would appear so the symantics you use to try and separate the fact that a fetus is not a human because it depends on a human to survive is assinine...Out of the womb we attach and depend on others to survive...We are still humans or in your case will be...someday...

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Tom201

This does not change the fact that there is an individual there, regardless of it's current developmental stage.

The developmental stage makes some diffrence. As I pointed out in my previous post:

What defines a human is that he has a brain, have thoughts going thru his mind, is intelligent (or at least could be ), etc.

Everything else like reproducing, eat, etc. can also performed by an animal.

Therefor lifeforms without a brain are not human.
Now go thru the development chain.
Sperm - no brain - not human
egg - no brain - not human
bunch of cells - no brain - not human
...
than somewhere in the process, Im not sure but I think it was 4. or 5. month pregnancy the unborn child is starting to develop a brain. voila we have a human being.

Therefor bevor this status all that is killed is a alife but not a human being. The moral issue is similar to killing an animal.
I can support killing animals for the benefit of the mother.

Why did noone really (other than argue about the time the brain develops) respond? I assume because Im correct and no one can rebute this and all of their statements that an embryo is "human" will be incorrect

Yes, yes I know your directing this last at me.

I'm sorry but your definition of a human sounds eroneous.

You seem to think that humans aren't animals, that something has to seperate "us" from "them". Well how does having a brain make us human? Other animals have brains. We eat, sleep, and procreate just as other animals do. What makes us different is our gentic make up. Yes our blood cells have the same DNA (human blood), does that make them human? No, because they are a part of the whole. Just as a fertilized egg in our zygote stage is the whole of us, AT THAT TIME.