It is certainly true that those who support abortion are monsters...

[Montrovant]

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming that ignoring science doesn't happen. I'm just saying it is possible for someone to make a moral judgement for or against abortion while not ignoring the science involved.

Your third example "well it's life, it just doesn't count" does not fit with the other two IMO. The whether or not a particular life 'counts' is a moral or value judgement; or at least, the way you are using it it seems to be. The first example is one of definition: what constitutes life. The second example is one of knowledge: what does humanity (or whatever group the 'we' indicates) know or not know. The third example appears to be more about what the life means to an individual, whether it matters to that individual, or how much. Different judgements about that can align with reality.

To give my own examples, one person might believe that all human life matters equally, while another might believe that human life without brain function matters less than human life with it. There is no ignoring science or reality in either judgement, instead a difference of opinion about what gives a life value. Whether one person finds the opinion of the other to be foolish or morally repugnant does not mean that either opinion is ignoring reality.

The idea that a sperm is a separate human life, on the other hand, would be ignoring science.

Well, we’ll do the hypothetical Teri Chiavo twin sister scenario/mental excercise, Cherri Tiavo. Same situation as Teri, only difference is, the doctors say give Cherri 7-8 months, 86% chance she’ll make a full recovery, and be a full functioning human being. Is it ok to end “life sustaining” treatment with that type of prognosis?

The answer does not matter to my point. Again, I'm not trying to argue the correct morality, just that the judgement is about morality. Whether someone believes it is or is not OK to end life sustaining treatment is a moral judgement and one that can be made without ignoring science either way.

But the answers matters to the immediate question that would obviously follow your point. It also matters to the overall debate. Questions on life and death, human rights, etc, shouldn’t be placed anywhere near the realm of it’s just a “potAto potoughto” issue. They need to be answered.

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

 

[sartre play]

If you don't fully support birth control you are pro abortion .

 

[Cecilie1200]

You get that it's not your opinion I'm objecting to; it's your assumption that every question asked and point made is about you personally.

Except I have made no such assumption. In fact, a lot of what I've been arguing is about what I see as the views of others.

That you assume I think every question asked is about me personally says much more about you than me.

I will admit to assuming that every post directly quoting me or one of my posts is directed at me, though.

Yeah, you have, in fact, made that assumption. And no, I'm not planning to go back and forth over this endlessly.

Wonderful for you that you are going to decide what I am or are not thinking, then.

This just in: saying words actually conveys meanings and communication to other people. Film at 11.

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

Nope. Never. I am perfectly willing to tell you that I think what you're saying is bullshit, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A fetus is alive. So is an ameba. Being alive does not make either a human being. You jackasses keep blathering about abortion being murder, but when children are subjected to inadequate medical care, poor nutrition, and are made to live in squalor, that is also murder...just the slow kind

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

True. REAL compassion would be working to make it easier for good parents to adopt in THIS country, instead of having to go overseas in order to adopt while they're still young and without going broke in the process.

This is certainly something people with different opinions on abortion should all be able to agree with. I've often heard that adoption can be a very difficult process, and while I understand wanting to properly vet adoptive parents, if there are far more children without parents who could benefit from being adopted than there are potential parents who have made it through that vetting process, it might be time to re-examine it and see if it can be done more efficiently.

Unfortunately, the people who tend to be pro-abortion are the same people who have multiple other priorities in the topic of adoptions that come ahead of the welfare of the children. It's quite outrageous, especially for people who love to try to claim some sort of moral high ground for their utterly amoral selves by accusing others of not caring about the children after they're born.

 

[bodecea]

"Lots of things are alive. Look how clever I am to dismiss a fetus's humanity on the basis that LOTS of non-humans are alive! Just don't ask me to account for the fact that the fetus has all the classifiers of humanity as well, because I'm hoping no one notices while I run past that!"

Moron.

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

True. REAL compassion would be working to make it easier for good parents to adopt in THIS country, instead of having to go overseas in order to adopt while they're still young and without going broke in the process.

This is certainly something people with different opinions on abortion should all be able to agree with. I've often heard that adoption can be a very difficult process, and while I understand wanting to properly vet adoptive parents, if there are far more children without parents who could benefit from being adopted than there are potential parents who have made it through that vetting process, it might be time to re-examine it and see if it can be done more efficiently.

Unfortunately, the people who tend to be pro-abortion are the same people who have multiple other priorities in the topic of adoptions that come ahead of the welfare of the children. It's quite outrageous, especially for people who love to try to claim some sort of moral high ground for their utterly amoral selves by accusing others of not caring about the children after they're born.

Interesting....an attempt to deflate the extremely valid point made that anti-choice people, for the most part, quickly abandon their moral concern for life as soon as a baby is born. We saw that with all the children being caged, for example.

 

[sakinago]

That’s funny, because ignoring science is all I’ve seen in this thread so far.

I also never said there couldn’t ever be any different conclusions. Of course there can be. Flat earth is actually a thing in 2018. The question is, is do those conclusions align with reality. If they don’t, that’d be like driving with a GPS with Chinese road maps downloaded in America. This was my point when I used the example of nihilism, or the computer code. If your theory is based on an a priori assumption of “its not life, because it isn’t,” or “well we don’t really know”, “well it’s life, it just doesn’t count”...then that’s not aligned with established reality. Unless someone wants to shed some new light on the matter that doesn’t involve thinking gametes are somehow equivalent to something that has double the chromosomes, and actually grows and develops...have at it.

Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming that ignoring science doesn't happen. I'm just saying it is possible for someone to make a moral judgement for or against abortion while not ignoring the science involved.

Your third example "well it's life, it just doesn't count" does not fit with the other two IMO. The whether or not a particular life 'counts' is a moral or value judgement; or at least, the way you are using it it seems to be. The first example is one of definition: what constitutes life. The second example is one of knowledge: what does humanity (or whatever group the 'we' indicates) know or not know. The third example appears to be more about what the life means to an individual, whether it matters to that individual, or how much. Different judgements about that can align with reality.

To give my own examples, one person might believe that all human life matters equally, while another might believe that human life without brain function matters less than human life with it. There is no ignoring science or reality in either judgement, instead a difference of opinion about what gives a life value. Whether one person finds the opinion of the other to be foolish or morally repugnant does not mean that either opinion is ignoring reality.

The idea that a sperm is a separate human life, on the other hand, would be ignoring science.

Well, we’ll do the hypothetical Teri Chiavo twin sister scenario/mental excercise, Cherri Tiavo. Same situation as Teri, only difference is, the doctors say give Cherri 7-8 months, 86% chance she’ll make a full recovery, and be a full functioning human being. Is it ok to end “life sustaining” treatment with that type of prognosis?

The answer does not matter to my point. Again, I'm not trying to argue the correct morality, just that the judgement is about morality. Whether someone believes it is or is not OK to end life sustaining treatment is a moral judgement and one that can be made without ignoring science either way.

But the answers matters to the immediate question that would obviously follow your point. It also matters to the overall debate. Questions on life and death, human rights, etc, shouldn’t be placed anywhere near the realm of it’s just a “potAto potoughto” issue. They need to be answered.

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My point is why bring in unanswerable philosophical questions, when science has already answered those questions. Not only had it answered those questions, it already provided a solution long ago in the form of birth control.

I also never skipped over the question of is a fetus a separate living being. That answer is yes, because it is nothing else. Parasites don’t suddenly become life once they latch onto a host, even though they may depend on the host for life. They also don’t become one with the host. How is it we definitively apply that simple logic to the likes of tapeworms, but not to our own? Why are we creating a vague abstraction for humans that we don’t apply to the rest of nature. It’s because people don’t want to take responsibilty for the act of reproduction. You may not intend to have a baby. That’s just what happens when two people launch their gametes at eachother, sometimes the guys buckshot hits the girls clay pigeon. You can try to reason or justify that responsibility away, but in doing so we are overlooking cold hard facts here we’ve known for a very long time. Because sex is fun, but sex also requires responsibility. You can’t simply reason that responsibility away, but there are very simple, easy, accessible, effective steps to have the fun without the responsibility.

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

They do if they don't want to admit to themselves what shit people they are. Being honest about the science and still wanting to have abortions - outside of the vanishingly small minority of hard cases - doesn't leave you any other choice but to say, "I think a disposable class of humans is perfectly okay, so long as it serves my needs." That's not something people are comfortable being honest about, unless they're sociopaths.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

Yo Bubba, I did not say that I believed that sperm was human life. I said that there are those who believe that , and your claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

You also ignorantly claimed recently that no one is opposed to contraception

BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception

Wake the fuck up. And if you are awake, stop lying

Learn the difference between "lying" and "being able to actually read". None of your links suggest that the writers believe sperm are living organisms, you illiterate dimwit.

 

[Montrovant]

Don't mistake me, I'm not claiming that ignoring science doesn't happen. I'm just saying it is possible for someone to make a moral judgement for or against abortion while not ignoring the science involved.

Your third example "well it's life, it just doesn't count" does not fit with the other two IMO. The whether or not a particular life 'counts' is a moral or value judgement; or at least, the way you are using it it seems to be. The first example is one of definition: what constitutes life. The second example is one of knowledge: what does humanity (or whatever group the 'we' indicates) know or not know. The third example appears to be more about what the life means to an individual, whether it matters to that individual, or how much. Different judgements about that can align with reality.

To give my own examples, one person might believe that all human life matters equally, while another might believe that human life without brain function matters less than human life with it. There is no ignoring science or reality in either judgement, instead a difference of opinion about what gives a life value. Whether one person finds the opinion of the other to be foolish or morally repugnant does not mean that either opinion is ignoring reality.

The idea that a sperm is a separate human life, on the other hand, would be ignoring science.

Well, we’ll do the hypothetical Teri Chiavo twin sister scenario/mental excercise, Cherri Tiavo. Same situation as Teri, only difference is, the doctors say give Cherri 7-8 months, 86% chance she’ll make a full recovery, and be a full functioning human being. Is it ok to end “life sustaining” treatment with that type of prognosis?

The answer does not matter to my point. Again, I'm not trying to argue the correct morality, just that the judgement is about morality. Whether someone believes it is or is not OK to end life sustaining treatment is a moral judgement and one that can be made without ignoring science either way.

But the answers matters to the immediate question that would obviously follow your point. It also matters to the overall debate. Questions on life and death, human rights, etc, shouldn’t be placed anywhere near the realm of it’s just a “potAto potoughto” issue. They need to be answered.

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

 

[Montrovant]

Except I have made no such assumption. In fact, a lot of what I've been arguing is about what I see as the views of others.

That you assume I think every question asked is about me personally says much more about you than me.

I will admit to assuming that every post directly quoting me or one of my posts is directed at me, though.

Yeah, you have, in fact, made that assumption. And no, I'm not planning to go back and forth over this endlessly.

Wonderful for you that you are going to decide what I am or are not thinking, then.

This just in: saying words actually conveys meanings and communication to other people. Film at 11.

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

Nope. Never. I am perfectly willing to tell you that I think what you're saying is bullshit, though.

Again, if you think the statement you put in quotes means the same thing as what I actually posted, you have an unusual definition for the phrase 'rather than'.

Thinking my opinions are bullshit is very different from trying to change the meaning of what I say, and that is what you did, whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[Montrovant]

Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one. Certainly human knowledge about the reproductive process, the stages of human development, play a significant part, but in the final analysis that knowledge is used to support a moral or philosophical opinion.

I would argue that people often do create "vague abstractions" for other parts of nature. We eat cows and pigs, but are revolted at the idea of eating dogs, or cats, or horses. Many people see a hamster as a cute, lovable pet and a rat as a disgusting disease-carrier, despite both being rodents. I would guess that someone breaking a bird egg would be viewed far differently from someone breaking a bird neck.

Of course, humans are also different from the rest of nature with our level of reasoning, intelligence, and technology, so it isn't all that unexpected that we would view ourselves in a different light.

I agree wholeheartedly that better, more common use of birth control would do a great deal to limit the amount of abortions.

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

They do if they don't want to admit to themselves what shit people they are. Being honest about the science and still wanting to have abortions - outside of the vanishingly small minority of hard cases - doesn't leave you any other choice but to say, "I think a disposable class of humans is perfectly okay, so long as it serves my needs." That's not something people are comfortable being honest about, unless they're sociopaths.

Why does it have to serve their needs? You seem to be saying that no one can have an honest opinion about different values for human life at different stages of development.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, you have, in fact, made that assumption. And no, I'm not planning to go back and forth over this endlessly.

Wonderful for you that you are going to decide what I am or are not thinking, then.

This just in: saying words actually conveys meanings and communication to other people. Film at 11.

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

Nope. Never. I am perfectly willing to tell you that I think what you're saying is bullshit, though.

Again, if you think the statement you put in quotes means the same thing as what I actually posted, you have an unusual definition for the phrase 'rather than'.

Thinking my opinions are bullshit is very different from trying to change the meaning of what I say, and that is what you did, whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh, for pity's sakes. If settling this will get you to quit wasting everyone's time yammering on about how ill-used and mistreated you've been, as though it's relevant to the topic and anyone gives a shit anyway, then fine.

This is what you said:

"Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one."

This is what I said you said:

"This is philosophical rather than scientific".

Now, if you really want to tell us how I've "egregiously" twisted and changed what you said, please feel free to get it off your chest so that we can all move on to talking about something that ACTUALLY interests us.

If you want to piss and moan about how you've been "misquoted" based on my expressing an opinion that you want the abortion debate to be subjective rather than objective, then please state that clearly now, so that I can dismiss you as a whiny drama queen and stop paying attention to you as though you might have something worthwhile to say.

Either way, please finish venting your feewings, and stop boring me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"This is philosophical rather than scientific" = "I can't win on the facts, because the facts make me look stupid"

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

No, there’s a moral aspect to it, this was never a claim as has been stated many times. “Philosophy” has to rely on reality, and we use science to understand reality. If philosophy isn’t based in reality, it is useless. It’d be like writing a computer code, you can write whatever code you want, but it has to be a workable code or it’ll crash the system. So, one could philosophize that nihilism is the way to go, because nothing matters and there is no “moral truth”. But if one actually puts nihilism into practice (almost all nihilist do not even go a tiny degree) their life, relationships, careers, whatever, spiral out of control (because at the very least, one must still behave in manner where things have meaning, or that there is right and wrong, even if they don’t believe that).

So, what good is it for philosophy to ignore what science (a.k.a reality) is telling them and not build off of that? Why are you looking for a computer code that’s just going to crash the system? Or in other words, my original question, why is it we are looking to philosophy to abstractly and non-concretely answer questions that science has already provided us?

The point is that the same reality can lead to different conclusions. No one has to ignore science to have differing opinions on abortion.

They do if they don't want to admit to themselves what shit people they are. Being honest about the science and still wanting to have abortions - outside of the vanishingly small minority of hard cases - doesn't leave you any other choice but to say, "I think a disposable class of humans is perfectly okay, so long as it serves my needs." That's not something people are comfortable being honest about, unless they're sociopaths.

Why does it have to serve their needs? You seem to be saying that no one can have an honest opinion about different values for human life at different stages of development.

Why does it have to serve their needs? What, pray tell, would be the point of having an abortion OTHER than that it serves your needs? Jesus, are you planning to quibble mindlessly with every word that's said just on the off-chance that you MIGHT stumble across a valid point?

I don't "seem" to be saying anything. I am stating outright that you can have an honest opinion about killing living human infants simply because you don't want them to exist and don't consider them important, but you're very unlikely to actually state such an opinion, even to yourself, unless you're a sociopath.

Which is why the opinions we actually hear expressed on the subject address everything BUT that question.

 

[Montrovant]

Wonderful for you that you are going to decide what I am or are not thinking, then.

This just in: saying words actually conveys meanings and communication to other people. Film at 11.

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

Nope. Never. I am perfectly willing to tell you that I think what you're saying is bullshit, though.

Again, if you think the statement you put in quotes means the same thing as what I actually posted, you have an unusual definition for the phrase 'rather than'.

Thinking my opinions are bullshit is very different from trying to change the meaning of what I say, and that is what you did, whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh, for pity's sakes. If settling this will get you to quit wasting everyone's time yammering on about how ill-used and mistreated you've been, as though it's relevant to the topic and anyone gives a shit anyway, then fine.

This is what you said:

"Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one."

This is what I said you said:

"This is philosophical rather than scientific".

Now, if you really want to tell us how I've "egregiously" twisted and changed what you said, please feel free to get it off your chest so that we can all move on to talking about something that ACTUALLY interests us.

If you want to piss and moan about how you've been "misquoted" based on my expressing an opinion that you want the abortion debate to be subjective rather than objective, then please state that clearly now, so that I can dismiss you as a whiny drama queen and stop paying attention to you as though you might have something worthwhile to say.

Either way, please finish venting your feewings, and stop boring me.

I say I've been misquoted based solely on the way you misquoted me.

Dismiss me as a drama queen if you want to. You still changed what I said, then claimed you did not.

In what I actually said, abortion is more philosophical than scientific, but science still plays a part. In the false quote you attributed to me, science plays no part. But you go on complaining about my not just blithely accepting you changing what I said.

The abortion debate is inherently subjective. One can (and should) base their opinion on objective facts, but it is still a subjective opinion in the end. What value an individual places on a life is subjective.

 

[jc456]

The abortion argument is not simply a scientific one. Or do you want to claim that this argument is not a moral one?

You also might want to try actually quoting when you use quotation marks. Then again, maybe your point is too weak to work with the actual quote.

do human fetus's turn into humans? It's a simple question. can you answer?

It is only a simple question to simple minds. It is not even the right question. The right question is WHEN does it become a human being. There are those who believe sperm are human beings and thereby even the use of condoms is murder . Where do YOU draw the line,??

No one, at least no one I know, believes that sperm are human beings. If they do, they shouldn’t be part of this conversation. If you actually think this is a legit argument...you also should not be part of the conversation. They are gametes. Again, a question that science answered a long time ago.

Dear god, where the hell did y’all receive your educations on this middle school level biology type of stuff? Demand a refund or stop wasting time on here and devote the rest of you life to fixing the education system, because it clearly failed you.

Yo Bubba, I did not say that I believed that sperm was human life. I said that there are those who believe that , and your claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

You also ignorantly claimed recently that no one is opposed to contraception

BBC - Ethics - Contraception: Moral case against contraception

Pope reaffirms Church opposition to contraception

Wake the fuck up. And if you are awake, stop lying

Learn the difference between "lying" and "being able to actually read". None of your links suggest that the writers believe sperm are living organisms, you illiterate dimwit.

well sure they are alive how else do they think a reproductive system works? really?

 

[jc456]

This just in: saying words actually conveys meanings and communication to other people. Film at 11.

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

Nope. Never. I am perfectly willing to tell you that I think what you're saying is bullshit, though.

Again, if you think the statement you put in quotes means the same thing as what I actually posted, you have an unusual definition for the phrase 'rather than'.

Thinking my opinions are bullshit is very different from trying to change the meaning of what I say, and that is what you did, whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh, for pity's sakes. If settling this will get you to quit wasting everyone's time yammering on about how ill-used and mistreated you've been, as though it's relevant to the topic and anyone gives a shit anyway, then fine.

This is what you said:

"Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one."

This is what I said you said:

"This is philosophical rather than scientific".

Now, if you really want to tell us how I've "egregiously" twisted and changed what you said, please feel free to get it off your chest so that we can all move on to talking about something that ACTUALLY interests us.

If you want to piss and moan about how you've been "misquoted" based on my expressing an opinion that you want the abortion debate to be subjective rather than objective, then please state that clearly now, so that I can dismiss you as a whiny drama queen and stop paying attention to you as though you might have something worthwhile to say.

Either way, please finish venting your feewings, and stop boring me.

I say I've been misquoted based solely on the way you misquoted me.

Dismiss me as a drama queen if you want to. You still changed what I said, then claimed you did not.

In what I actually said, abortion is more philosophical than scientific, but science still plays a part. In the false quote you attributed to me, science plays no part. But you go on complaining about my not just blithely accepting you changing what I said.

The abortion debate is inherently subjective. One can (and should) base their opinion on objective facts, but it is still a subjective opinion in the end. What value an individual places on a life is subjective.

well I don't care what anyone says, abortion is killing. can't say anything else. there is something alive that is killed. game set match. so they are killers.

 

[jc456]

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

True. REAL compassion would be working to make it easier for good parents to adopt in THIS country, instead of having to go overseas in order to adopt while they're still young and without going broke in the process.

This is certainly something people with different opinions on abortion should all be able to agree with. I've often heard that adoption can be a very difficult process, and while I understand wanting to properly vet adoptive parents, if there are far more children without parents who could benefit from being adopted than there are potential parents who have made it through that vetting process, it might be time to re-examine it and see if it can be done more efficiently.

Unfortunately, the people who tend to be pro-abortion are the same people who have multiple other priorities in the topic of adoptions that come ahead of the welfare of the children. It's quite outrageous, especially for people who love to try to claim some sort of moral high ground for their utterly amoral selves by accusing others of not caring about the children after they're born.

Interesting....an attempt to deflate the extremely valid point made that anti-choice people, for the most part, quickly abandon their moral concern for life as soon as a baby is born. We saw that with all the children being caged, for example.

how you figure. that is pure speculation to which you have no evidence or support of.

 

[sakinago]

Tell us more about how much you care about that fetus when it actually becomes a human being. Tell us which government programs that can reduce unwanted pregnancies and encourage others to keep their child. Tell us how pro life you really are or get out of my face.

there are plenty of parents available for unwanted children. you should read up rather than wish them dead.

True. REAL compassion would be working to make it easier for good parents to adopt in THIS country, instead of having to go overseas in order to adopt while they're still young and without going broke in the process.

This is certainly something people with different opinions on abortion should all be able to agree with. I've often heard that adoption can be a very difficult process, and while I understand wanting to properly vet adoptive parents, if there are far more children without parents who could benefit from being adopted than there are potential parents who have made it through that vetting process, it might be time to re-examine it and see if it can be done more efficiently.

Unfortunately, the people who tend to be pro-abortion are the same people who have multiple other priorities in the topic of adoptions that come ahead of the welfare of the children. It's quite outrageous, especially for people who love to try to claim some sort of moral high ground for their utterly amoral selves by accusing others of not caring about the children after they're born.

Interesting....an attempt to deflate the extremely valid point made that anti-choice people, for the most part, quickly abandon their moral concern for life as soon as a baby is born. We saw that with all the children being caged, for example.

You are exactly like Steve Buschemi in the first 1:15 of this clip. This issue has been discussed, extensively. It is a red herring, and a strawman. You’re out of your element Donny

 

[sakinago]

Well, we’ll do the hypothetical Teri Chiavo twin sister scenario/mental excercise, Cherri Tiavo. Same situation as Teri, only difference is, the doctors say give Cherri 7-8 months, 86% chance she’ll make a full recovery, and be a full functioning human being. Is it ok to end “life sustaining” treatment with that type of prognosis?

The answer does not matter to my point. Again, I'm not trying to argue the correct morality, just that the judgement is about morality. Whether someone believes it is or is not OK to end life sustaining treatment is a moral judgement and one that can be made without ignoring science either way.

But the answers matters to the immediate question that would obviously follow your point. It also matters to the overall debate. Questions on life and death, human rights, etc, shouldn’t be placed anywhere near the realm of it’s just a “potAto potoughto” issue. They need to be answered.

As I've said, I am only arguing a narrow point here. I don't want to debate the morality of abortion. It is one of the more pointless arguments to engage in.

So you’re just here to point out the obvious, that’s there’s different views, and those views generally involve some type of morals? Not the actual moral debate? People don’t usually argue from a standpoint that is devoid of morality. It seems here you want to forfeit the 5th to make a point, then plead it when challenged.

If you'll go back, you'll see that this whole discussion (with me, not the thread, obviously), began when I responded to a statement that whether a fetus is alive is the only question. It's also been at least implied, if not directly stated, that the abortion issue has been decided by science, as though a moral judgement cannot be made in the face of current human reproductive and developmental knowledge. I have been trying to limit my participation to those things since.

Yes I know that. The point of disagreement is you seem to imply that because opposing sides can make moral arguments neither is false or correct. It’s a post-modernist stance you seem to be taking. Post-modernism is fine up until it gets to the point that because there are different interpretations, none is better than the other, it’s all just a power game being played.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This just in: saying words actually conveys meanings and communication to other people. Film at 11.

That's true. Too bad you are willing to change the words and meanings when it suits you.

Nope. Never. I am perfectly willing to tell you that I think what you're saying is bullshit, though.

Again, if you think the statement you put in quotes means the same thing as what I actually posted, you have an unusual definition for the phrase 'rather than'.

Thinking my opinions are bullshit is very different from trying to change the meaning of what I say, and that is what you did, whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh, for pity's sakes. If settling this will get you to quit wasting everyone's time yammering on about how ill-used and mistreated you've been, as though it's relevant to the topic and anyone gives a shit anyway, then fine.

This is what you said:

"Abortion is far more a philosophical debate than a scientific one."

This is what I said you said:

"This is philosophical rather than scientific".

Now, if you really want to tell us how I've "egregiously" twisted and changed what you said, please feel free to get it off your chest so that we can all move on to talking about something that ACTUALLY interests us.

If you want to piss and moan about how you've been "misquoted" based on my expressing an opinion that you want the abortion debate to be subjective rather than objective, then please state that clearly now, so that I can dismiss you as a whiny drama queen and stop paying attention to you as though you might have something worthwhile to say.

Either way, please finish venting your feewings, and stop boring me.

I say I've been misquoted based solely on the way you misquoted me.

Dismiss me as a drama queen if you want to. You still changed what I said, then claimed you did not.

In what I actually said, abortion is more philosophical than scientific, but science still plays a part. In the false quote you attributed to me, science plays no part. But you go on complaining about my not just blithely accepting you changing what I said.

The abortion debate is inherently subjective. One can (and should) base their opinion on objective facts, but it is still a subjective opinion in the end. What value an individual places on a life is subjective.

"Never mind the facts. I say you did it, because I say you did it." Noted, dismissed, and forgotten as the bullshit whining that it is.

Moving on, abortion is not subjective, unless you'd like to surrender any and all claim to the idea that your own life is inherently valuable and worthy of protection regardless of whether or not a single other person on this planet gives a rat's fart if you exist. Where you're going wrong is that you want to pretend to believe that morality itself is just an opinion. It is not. That is a falsehood people tell themselves when they want to behave badly and still tell themselves they're actually good people.