The Abortion Question

[fredtoast]

(09-30-2015, 06:08 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: We know the fetus is alive we just ignore it because technology isn't advanced enough.

No one ignores this.

Why can't you argue this point without just making stuff up.

It may be alive, but it is not an individual entitled to individual rights greater than those of the mother.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 12:50 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Try to think more abstractly. Are people found guilty by the government?

Yes, the criminal justice system is part of the government.

[Naranja Tigre]

(10-01-2015, 11:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, the criminal justice system is part of the government.

I disagree, I believe you are found guilty by a jury of peers.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 01:18 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Just because a fetus can't live without it's mother doesn't change whether it is human life or not. 

But it does determine if the fetus is an individual entitled to individual rights greater than those of the mother.  You can make all the philosophical arguments you want, but the courts have to deal with legal rights.

The issue of "is it right" is not the same as "is it legal".  Personally I don't think it is right for people to preach hatred in public, but I understand why it is legal.

[Naranja Tigre]

(10-01-2015, 02:40 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Yeah, but if that would have happened, the religious right wouldn't have anybody (other than children) to keep in "subjection" per the Bible's instructions, and therefore would have to confront their inadequacies instead of project them onto females.

No wonder you're all against abortion. What's the fun in life without having a whole class of people to denigrate, insult, exploit and control?

Subjegating women? Come on.

Yknow the ironic thing is that if we lived in a world with no birth control or abortion, and we also kept our laws on child support, I bet women would be treated like queens.

Instead we live in a world with care free sex and women are objects. I shouldn't complain though.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 12:03 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Yknow the ironic thing is that if we lived in a world with no birth control or abortion, and we also kept our laws on child support, I bet women would be treated like queens.

Don't know much about world history, do you?

[Naranja Tigre]

(10-01-2015, 12:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't know much about world history, do you?

I do, that's why I said "if we kept our laws on child support"

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-01-2015, 12:08 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: I do, that's why I said "if we kept our laws on child support"

Then you still don't know much about world history.

[Naranja Tigre]

(10-01-2015, 12:15 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Then you still don't know much about world history.

Ok

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 11:58 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: I disagree, I believe you are found guilty by a jury of peers.

They are drafted into that job by the government just like soldiers were drafted to fight wars. 

Does that mean that our wars were fought by individuals and not by our government?

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 12:08 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: I do, that's why I said "if we kept our laws on child support"

We do keep our laws on child support.

I don't understand what do you even mean by this comment.

[Naranja Tigre]

(10-01-2015, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They are drafted into that job by the government just like soldiers were drafted to fight wars. 

Does that mean that our wars were fought by individuals and not by our government?

Soldiers are ordered to do what they do.

Jurors are not ordered to find someone guilty. They are ordered to make a choice. The government can not change that choice.

[Naranja Tigre]

(10-01-2015, 12:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: We do keep our laws on child support.

I don't understand what do you even mean by this comment.

Just think about it a little. Imagine a world with no birth control or abortion, and men are thrown in jail if they don't pay child support.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 12:33 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Soldiers are ordered to do what they do.

Jurors are not ordered to find someone guilty. They are ordered to make a choice. The government can not change that choice.

There are lots of scientists that work for the government that are not told what to find, but they are still the government.  Jurors are just people the government force to work for them.


And an appeals court can overrule a jury.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 12:35 PM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Just think about it a little. Imagine a world with no birth control or abortion, and men are thrown in jail if they don't pay child support.

You mean early 20th century United States?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 12:50 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Try to think more abstractly. Are people found guilty by the government?

Ditto, my child.  Ditto.

People make up a jury.  They jury is part of a court.  The court is part of the judicial branch of the government.  Ergo the government finds people guilty or innocent. 

http://www.projectlearnet.org/tutorials/concrete_vs_abstract_thinking.html

You are a concrete thinker, not an abstract thinker.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 01:02 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Keeping them alive longer isn't moving the point of death. The point of death is when brainwaves, heartbeat, ect is gone is it not? Technology can't move that point back. It can make it harder to die, but it doesn't move the point back.

If a person would die of a heart attack, but a cardiac cath saves their life.  The point of death has been moved by technology.

If a drowned child has no pulse, respirations, and brain activity for hours, but is resuscitated back to life; the point of death has been moved by technology.

Traditionally, pulse and respirations were used to determine death.  The ability to measure brain activity has changed the definition of death.  A person with a pulse, respiration, and brain activity is alive.   A person with a pulse, respirations, and no brain activity is dead.  How do we measure brain activity?  Technology.  Again, technology has moved the "point of death" or whatever phrase you used.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 01:18 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Just because a fetus can't live without it's mother doesn't change whether it is human life or not. ALL life has stages, those stages do not change what that life IS, or what nature has intended for that life to become.

A cicada lives underground for 17 years and then becomes the crazy looking giant fly nature intended it be. A zygote becomes a fetus, becomes a baby in utero, and if it's not aborted it will be born and at that point, no amount of your creepy rationalization can change what it has become.

Argue on behalf of the mother, that argument at least makes sense. Don't argue that the beginnings of human life are not human.

Who argued a human zygote isn't a human zygote?  No one. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 01:34 AM)Naranja Tigre Wrote: Those stupid women are lucky they were born, right? Coulda been aborted

God is responsible for more spontaneous abortions than Planned Parenthood is responsible for elective abortions.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-01-2015, 03:15 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nice strawman you got there.

It's not a strawman.  A strawman is when I disagree with a statement I imply you made, but didn't.

Example:  You can claim technology never moved the point of death, but that doesn't mean we don't need medical technology despite your claim we don't.

You never claimed we don't need medical technology, but in my strawman argument I made it seem like you did.  Most likely, your next response would be, "I never said we don't need medical technology!"