An Unborn Child is in Fact, Human

[Sixchan]

I'm going to say what NA wanted the pro-choicers to say.

We are killing something that is human, and quite possibly sentient, depending on how far into pregnancy you want to draw the line, and I am perfectly OK with that because I believe it is the mother's right to choose whether she wants to have (as in give birth) the baby in question.

And I really do believe it. Happy, NA?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sixchan
I'm going to say what NA wanted the pro-choicers to say.

We are killing something that is human, and quite possibly sentient, depending on how far into pregnancy you want to draw the line, and I am perfectly OK with that because I believe it is the mother's right to choose whether she wants to have (as in give birth) the baby in question.

And I really do believe it. Happy, NA?

Wow. that's profound.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


...and the life of the mother who bears and rears that child. That is her decision, and it is no one else's right but her own whether she wants that foetus inside her, and is thus her right to abort that foetus, which is in real terms acting in a parasitic capacity...

One could apply that argument to infancy and childhood. Perhaps we should supplant the old Paternal right of Life and Death over the family that existed centuries ago with the Maternal right of Life and Death. Now that would be progress.

[Lincoln]

Oh it's the old "parasite" argument again eh? And I thought we were becoming more civilized...

[Akka]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Akka: We will not agree on any definition because any definition that you will have will be the one that justifies abortion in your mind.
And guess what mine will be.

Of course

As I'm an Evil Bad Horrible Pro-choice, I'm de facto unsincere and twisted, so I de facto only define a human person in a way that allows the abortion.

Of course, a pro-life, on the other side, is member of the Good Gentle Trustful party and only define human in pure sincerity, and it's a pure coincidence that this definition (which he is unable to tell BTW) prevent abortion.

Did I hear the word "hypocrisis" ?



Well, Richelieu, if you want to be taken seriously, you should back up why abortion is evil with better arguments than that.
I defined what is a person and gave reason why I consider the embryo not being a person.
You neither defined what is a person, neither disprove my reasonning.
Guess who's the best chances to be right ?

[Akka]

Originally posted by November Adam
Akka, the human organism is not based on its brain. A "person" is, the defintion of "person" is more ambiguos.

I'm not sure if you read my post earlier, but abortion is killing a human in its embryotic stage.

You are arguing that it is okay to kill a human as long as it is not a "person".

So to you what is a person? Don't forget humans in the past had different deffinitions of a person, which often did not include people of colour.

Excuse me if I feel insulted by your post.
I spent one third of the message to precisely define what is a person, and you come now and ask me "what is a person ?" ?

Well, a piece of advice : read a message before answering it. Not only it's basic politeness, but it will also spare you the embarassment to make a complete fool of yourself.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Of course

As I'm an Evil Bad Horrible Pro-choice, I'm de facto unsincere and twisted, so I de facto only define a human person in a way that allows the abortion.

Of course, a pro-life, on the other side, is member of the Good Gentle Trustful party and only define human in pure sincerity, and it's a pure coincidence that this definition (which he is unable to tell BTW) prevent abortion.

Did I hear the word "hypocrisis" ?



Well, Richelieu, if you want to be taken seriously, you should back up why abortion is evil with better arguments than that.
I defined what is a person and gave reason why I consider the embryo not being a person.
You neither defined what is a person, neither disprove my reasonning.
Guess who's the best chances to be right ?

Where did you get the idea that i think Pro-Choice are evil? Where did you get the idea that i think evil exists?
As a matter of fact i posted that i don't believe in God. Nor in Evil.
If you want to be taken serously find and post one of my posts where i say that Pro-Choice are Evil.

And to answer the first part of your post, i don't think you define a human person in a way that allows the abortion because you are evil or unsincere or twisted. I think you choose a definition that justifies your beliefs.
I happen to disagree with your beliefs.

So please give that religious crap to someone who deserves it. There are some around here i believe.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Sixchan
I'm going to say what NA wanted the pro-choicers to say.

We are killing something that is human, and quite possibly sentient, depending on how far into pregnancy you want to draw the line, and I am perfectly OK with that because I believe it is the mother's right to choose whether she wants to have (as in give birth) the baby in question.

And I really do believe it. Happy, NA?

Yep.

You're not pretending it's something that it's not. Your beliefs vs my beliefs. No refs. No winner.

[Sixchan]

See? Now why can't we all just get along?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Richelieu
And to answer the first part of your post, i don't think you define a human person in a way that allows the abortion because you are evil or unsincere or twisted. I think you choose a definition that justifies your beliefs.

Choosing a definition for "human person" with the intention to justify a belief IS unsincere and twisted. It would be like defining murder as "killing someone except if it's convenient for me". If I was defining a human person just to justify abortion, I would be in fact evil and twisted.

Though, I gave reasons to explain why I support my definition of "human person". You still have not disproved them, and you still have not explained what you consider a human person. Rather, you attack my definition by suggesting I conveniently chose it to justify my opinions.

Again : give your own definition of what is a human person, and disprove my own reasonings.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Choosing a definition for "human person" with the intention to justify a belief IS unsincere and twisted. It would be like defining murder as "killing someone except if it's convenient for me". If I was defining a human person just to justify abortion, I would be in fact evil and twisted.

Though, I gave reasons to explain why I support my definition of "human person". You still have not disproved them, and you still have not explained what you consider a human person. Rather, you attack my definition by suggesting I conveniently chose it to justify my opinions.

Again : give your own definition of what is a human person, and disprove my own reasonings.

Why ?

The reasons you give to explain your choices are all derived from/ influenced by your beliefs, which are neither twisted nor insincere. They can't be proven or disproven - they're just not the same as mine.
You seem to think that there can only be right and wrong, winner or loser, no middle ground, no grey zones, no differences in opinions.
You seem to think that YOU are right and that I am wrong. You hold the truth and i don't.

There just is no such thing.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Sixchan
I'm going to say what NA wanted the pro-choicers to say.

We are killing something that is human, and quite possibly sentient, depending on how far into pregnancy you want to draw the line, and I am perfectly OK with that because I believe it is the mother's right to choose whether she wants to have (as in give birth) the baby in question.

And I really do believe it. Happy, NA?

This is perfectly fine, at least we could argue on the topic of abortion because we both have a similar definition.

[Sixchan]

I don't believe you can really argue about abortion, as it is a moral issue, and when poeple form morals, it is difficult to change them. Debating the social effects of abortion is possible, but when the very small groups of pro-lifers bomb clinics, it shows thay have learned that few things short of brute force will change someone's moral outlook.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Why ?

The reasons you give to explain your choices are all derived from/ influenced by your beliefs, which are neither twisted nor insincere. They can't be proven or disproven - they're just not the same as mine.
You seem to think that there can only be right and wrong, winner or loser, no middle ground, no grey zones, no differences in opinions.
You seem to think that YOU are right and that I am wrong. You hold the truth and i don't.

There just is no such thing.

Logic is not derived from beliefs. It's a simple mechanism of the act of thinking. It's like the cinetic energy in physics. Logic is only about causes and results, action and reaction. Any reasonning can be proven/disproven, as reasoning are based on logic.

There is grey areas in the world. There is things where we, humans, just can't know the answers (the existence of God is a good example).
But the definition of a human being is not part of these unanswerable questions. If you're unable to define a person, how are you about to define murder ? Abuse ? Theft ? ANY crime ?
I don't HOLD the truth. I give a reasonning to support my views. Until it's disproven, I'll consider it right. Seem logical to me.

I don't like the "we agree to disagree" method for things like abortion, because the result of the confrontation of ideas on this point can change how it's dealt by society. I will fight for the right to abort and I don't want to get back to a backward society where the rights of a thing are put above the rights of a human being. I will fight to keep abortion being considered a standard, classical, surgical operation.

And finally, if you are unable to give any argument to WHY you consider abortion wrong... Well, I just wonder why you believe it's wrong in the first place.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Sixchan
I don't believe you can really argue about abortion, as it is a moral issue, and when poeple form morals, it is difficult to change them. Debating the social effects of abortion is possible, but when the very small groups of pro-lifers bomb clinics, it shows thay have learned that few things short of brute force will change someone's moral outlook.

Debating is useful, as it can shows to people why someone is having certain moral opinions. "it's bad because it's bad" is absurd. You always consider something bad for a reason. Explaining these reasons can make other understand them and accept them, or you can suddendly realize that they were falses and you can alter your own views.
A not so long time ago, slavery was not considered bad. If it was not for some people that tried to open the mind and share their ideas to other, we could still live in a world were slavery would be acceptable.