The Right to Life

a pebble

Strategos
Be mature here. If this turns into a flame/hate fest, I'll simply close it and hand out infractions. Civility and respect will get you a long way, now let's begin:

Definition of murder: the premeditated taking of a human life who has not committed an act deserving of death.

Now, I will proceed:

At one point I did not exist. I was not an idea, not a thought, not a concept feasible to the mind. I then became an idea and a concept, but my physical nature did not yet exist. Then, one day, it did. Starting out as a clump of cells, my physical nature began. Although I could not yet be classified scientifically as “human”, the cells that existed embodied the idea and concept of what I would become – human.

The cells that were not scientifically human were, conceptually and idealistically, human. If one could view the cells and ask my parents “What is that?” they would most assuredly say something to the effect that the clump of cells was their child or soon-to-be child. The clump of cells not yet human were used to describe what would one day be considered human in several months.

All of this to say, although the clump of cells is not defined as human, the cells are undoubtedly known to have the capacity and definite conclusion of becoming human. This then means that interfering with the cell becoming human would therefore be denying the potential existence its humanity with full knowing of the act committed.
As humans are certain to experience joy and pain, among other things, we therefore can determine that by denying the cells humanity by interfering, we have deprived the potential existence for joy as well as pain. We have also denied the cells the potential to think and have choice.

Allow me to construct another argument: a child is promised he will be taken to a theme park. However, when the day comes, the parents take away the theme park for no just cause on the child’s part. The child was undoubtedly promised to enjoy himself, but the potential for the joy was taken. We can adequately say that the joy was stolen from the child unjustly.

Using the similar argument: if a cell is destined to have joy through existence, but then denied the existence for no just cause on the cells’ part, the cell has therefore been denied joy unjustly. Apply the same argument for every aspect of humanity such as love, pain, hate, thinking, experiences, and, most importantly, life.

Thus, we have stolen human life unjustly from the cell- unjustly taken human life (from what it is taken from is irrelevant to the definition). As we knew the cell had the potential to become human, the unjust denial was premeditated. In essence, we have killed the potential for life and thus sentenced the potential human to death for no just cause.
We therefore are guilty of the taking of a human life that has not done anything deserving of death. In adherence to the initial definition, we are guilty of murder.
 

Slim Shaddies

Chiliarch
What if those cells were forcibly planted there.
I assume you're referring to impregnation by rape, the principle still applies though as the cells did not chose to be forcibly implanted into the women and become a living being thus choosing to kill the cells is still would fall under the category of murder as the cells did nothing other than exist to simply be killed.
 

Genios

Phrourach
I think abortion is acceptable if it has the potential to ruin another life ie. the mother's.
 
Last edited:

Slim Shaddies

Chiliarch
Is this about abortion
Yes its about abortion, often abortions are done during the first trimester of pregnancy before the child actually begins to take form and signs of pregnancy are shown on the mother which is part of why pebble chose to use cells as the example for this (I assume that's why).
 
I think abortion is acceptable if it has the potential to ruin another life ie. the mother's.
A fireman is trying to rescue two people in a burning building. He only has time to save one of them and yes he can save one of them. One is a baby and the other is his mother. Who would you have the fireman choose?
Oh, then yes abortion is muder in all other cases besides rape.
that's not how it works. I'm sorry it just isn't.
 

Link of time

Phrourach
One was voluntary, one was not. I'm not denying that you killed them, I'm saying if you don't want an involuntary kid you wouldn't need to raise him. Rape is a federal crime, making love is not.
 
Last edited:

Genios

Phrourach
A fireman is trying to rescue two people in a burning building. He only has time to save one of them and yes he can save one of them. One is a baby and the other is his mother. Who would you have the fireman choose?
I would choose the mother. Call me a heartless bastard but the child would have a bad time growing up without the mother. Although the baby has it's full life ahead of it, and I see that as a good argument against abortion I would always choose the mother. I think we should all have opinions on this but we shouldn't judge people on their actions as we have never been in that situation to know that (at least I hope not).
 

Link of time

Phrourach
I would choose the mother. Call me a heartless bastard but the child would have a bad time growing up without the mother. Although the baby has it's full life ahead of it, and I see that as a good argument against abortion I would always choose the mother. I think we should all have opinions on this but we shouldn't judge people on their actions as we have never been in that situation to know that (at least I hope not).
I know plenty of people that have a fine life without a mother.
 
One was voluntary, one was not. I'm not denying that you killed them, I'm saying if you don't want an involuntary kid you wouldn't need to raise him. Rape is a federal crime, making love is not.
Soooooo it's still murder. What you are arguing again?

I would choose the mother. Call me a heartless bastard but the child would have a bad time growing up without the mother. Although the baby has it's full life ahead of it, and I see that as a good argument against abortion I would always choose the mother. I think we should all have opinions on this but we shouldn't judge people on their actions as we have never been in that situation to know that (at least I hope not).
OK so you are denying a child any and all happiness because they might be sad.
 
Last edited:

Link of time

Phrourach
Oh, then yes abortion is muder in all other cases besides rape.
This. Sorry if my dead-set Christian and Republican opinions bore you.

Definition of murder: the premeditated taking of a human life who has not committed an act deserving of death.

I believe, by Pebble's definition of murder abortion of a child caused by rape is indeed not murder.
 
Last edited:

a pebble

Strategos
What if those cells were forcibly planted there.
This is where I get a bit sketchy on this (as everyone does). If rape is the cause of the impregnation the main key would be the "premeditated" aspect as well as the "promise of human life" aspect.

The argument practically boils down to this: The cells are to become human. The cells are known to become and be able to become human. By denying that process, you are denying human life. This then translates to murder.

With rape, this equation becomes a bit skewed. Yes, the cells are still to become human. The cells are known to become and able to become human. And by denying the process you are denying human life, which translates to murder.

The issue arises that there was no true promise of life to the child through consenting to have intercourse. While it technically is still murder by killing the child, the only consenting party to the act which instilled the promise of life was on the part of the rapist father. Therefore, by aborting the child, the mother (who did not promise life to the child by any means as she did not consent) is indemnified from the accusations of murder. However, the rapist father did consent and therefore carries the weight of promising life to said child.

Since life was guaranteed by that party, should the baby be aborted, I would accuse the rapist of murder (and rape) and accuse the woman of murder but protect it under the law. Or she could have the child. Up to her at that point.

Do bear in mind, this is an argument in progress being built as I go. Subject to change at any point.

I assume you're referring to impregnation by rape, the principle still applies though as the cells did not chose to be forcibly implanted into the women and become a living being thus choosing to kill the cells is still would fall under the category of murder as the cells did nothing other than exist to simply be killed.
Read above.

I think abortion is acceptable if it has the potential to ruin another life ie. the mother's.
Life of the mother. In this I would relate it to self defense. Not murder.

Yes its about abortion, often abortions are done during the first trimester of pregnancy before the child actually begins to take form and signs of pregnancy are shown on the mother which is part of why pebble chose to use cells as the example for this (I assume that's why).
Yup.

A fireman is trying to rescue two people in a burning building. He only has time to save one of them and yes he can save one of them. One is a baby and the other is his mother. Who would you have the fireman choose?
Your analogy is irrelevant. In this, both are living humans and both are subject to death. In my scenario, one is living and one has a potential and promise of human life. Since the latter threatens the life of the former, the living mother has the right to terminate based on those threats to her life. She doesn't have to, but her choice is there due to the threat of lossed life.
 

Benvolio

Guest
muh cells are so precious
muh human life is worth anything
muh cells are MURDERED by abortion

Do you guys only wear clothes YOU personally made from only plant products that you personally grew?
Do you only eat things like algae, where the growth and harvesting doesn't affect other animals?
Or do you only chimp out like this over things that are only possible to humans?

Think for a second.
"Murder" is only terrible when it actually negatively impacts society as a whole, otherwise society wouldn't care.
It was made a crime because every hand was needed when it came time to harvest crops or build a new house or barn, and because there were so few people only one person could study medicine, only one person could dedicate themselves to managing livestock, etc.
So when that person was killed, it left a huge gap in the community.

We are in the exact opposite situation now. We have so many people that we cannot simultaneously create enough resources to keep all of us alive and maintain the infrastructure necessary to transport those resources from where they are produced to where they need to be.

So yes, it might be "murder". Quit being so damn scared of the word itself and think for a second what it actually means.

Often times, abortion comes as an option when it would considerably stress the community to care for a child the parents themselves would not be able to alone. Since the child, therefore, would simply end up being a net-loss for the community, there is little reason for them to support it.

Look at animals in nature. A duck is born with deformities that inhibit it from swimming? What does the mother do? Certainly not tell the little duckling that he'll be alright and that the rest of the family will support it for it's entire life.
No, she chucks the useless baby into a stream and walks away while it drowns or is washed away.

When a kitten is born with horrible deformities, what does the mother do?
She smothers it until it is dead, or she refuses to feed it until it starves.



To the initial argument, it is completely off.
Assuming that the bundle of cells inside the uterus has any sentience, it would be like telling a mouse that you're going to take him to an amusement park.
Not only does it not understand a word of what you're saying, but even if it did it has no concept of what an amusement park is. It would not even be excited at the prospect of going to this amusement park, as, again, it has literally no idea what amusement means, or what a park is, or what they mean when you put them together. It is so far detached from what it knows that it would probably simply ignore it as you speaking gibberish.
So, when it doesn't happen, it won't even know.

Alternatively, if that little bundle of cells has no sentience, it would be like telling a book that you're going to take it to an amusement park. It cannot comprehend you, doesn't feel emotion, and regardless of whether you do or don't will not have the capability to care.
 

a pebble

Strategos
*First part*


To the initial argument, it is completely off.
Assuming that the bundle of cells inside the uterus has any sentience, it would be like telling a mouse that you're going to take him to an amusement park.
Not only does it not understand a word of what you're saying, but even if it did it has no concept of what an amusement park is. It would not even be excited at the prospect of going to this amusement park, as, again, it has literally no idea what amusement means, or what a park is, or what they mean when you put them together. It is so far detached from what it knows that it would probably simply ignore it as you speaking gibberish.
So, when it doesn't happen, it won't even know.

Alternatively, if that little bundle of cells has no sentience, it would be like telling a book that you're going to take it to an amusement park. It cannot comprehend you, doesn't feel emotion, and regardless of whether you do or don't will not have the capability to care.
For the first part, I personally think denying life to any human to be morally wrong...damn the social situations which the murder resides in. Other than that, the first part seemed rather irrelevant to the argument itself.

On to your reply:

You seemed to have severely missed the point and also took the analogy and used it to mock the argument itself (not nice). Anyway, allow me to paint the picture a bit clearer for you since you missed the point by such a large margin-

The debate was never about the sentience of the cells. At all.
It's understanding of life (or an amusement park) is irrelevant. If I'm promised payment but don't know what gold is, I still should expect payment. My understanding of the payment is irrelevant.
It's knowledge of what was denied is irrelevant. If I were to steal something of value and you never notice, does that make my act morally permissible? If you think so, that is at best morally flawed and at worst borderline sociopathic.

You so so missed the point. The point was that the cells have POTENTIAL to be human and are KNOWN TO BE capable of humanity and that if there was NO INTERFERENCE that clump of cells WOULD BE human. Thus, by interfering in the process by abortion, there is a denied human life, premeditated and full knowing of what was being done. And since the clump of cells did nothing to warrant death on itself, there is no just cause to kill the human it would become, therefore it is murder.

Think of it in the future tense. Assuming the child was not aborted, that child would exist as a human. By aborting, that human is being denied life before it has a chance to live. That human which would exist (who was guaranteed life, known to be capable of life, and deserving nothing to end that life) was effectively murdered. I know it takes a bit to stretch your mind from the confines of its temporal box and actually see things from a new perspective, but give it a shot.
 

Link of time

Phrourach
I'm sorry if you already explained this and I missed it but how?
Ever heard of the term "Gulity by association?"
If those cells were indeed forcibly put there, in my own opinion is an act permissible of death, however not necessary in most cases (though not condoning the action, just saying sometimes just simply not nessary) for both the offender and his 'cells.'
The offender is someone's son/daughter, just like the victim is. They shouldn't have a child forced upon them, however.
 

Slim Shaddies

Chiliarch
Ever heard of the term "Gulity by association?"
If those cells were indeed forcibly put there, in my own opinion is an act permissible of death, however not necessary in most cases (though not condoning the action, just saying sometimes just simply not nessary) for both the offender and his 'cells.'
The offender is someone's son/daughter, just like the victim is. They shouldn't have a child forced upon them, however.
So the cells in question here are guilty of rape by association even though their only association to the rapist is that they were created from the sperm of the rapist which only has one goal of fermenting a female egg and becoming a person, and because of being guilty of rape the cells no longer have the right to live and can be killed without being defined as murder.