The Right to Life

[DeletedUser33530]

You do know that no birth control works 100% and that accidents do happen? Do you want to outlaw sex for pleasure entirely?

well...
ok no sorry i couldn't resist

Lol what a rebuttal.. It might be the most cynical thing that you heard but that doesn't change the facts.

I'm with skull on this one link

Should be entirely up to the person.

I always feel bad for doctor that would have to do it though. Would be a really sucky part of the job. I might bring this to the debate section later.

with taxing I meant mentally, emotionally. Although kids are definitely extremely expensive but if you don't want a kid for monetary reasons you'd have aborted much earlier (and subsequently should be allowed imo, see earlier posts)

Life is mentally and emotionally taxing to be frank. I really don't see how that would lead to one saying let's not have the child. I can only see the child's suffering being a good "excuse" for lack of better words.

Lol it's not though. 'coathanger abortions' are widespread in countries where it's illegal. They are also extremely dangerous. If you truly want an abortion you could get one regardless of the law. It would just be much more dangerous.

If I truly wanted to kill someone i could regardless of the law. If I truly wanted to get illegal drugs i could regardless of the law. A reason for there not to be a law against something can't be "because people will break it anyway".
I really do find your other arguments to very knowledge and clearly well considered but this one is just plain stupid.

 

[Link of time]

If it doesn't work, too bad, it's your responsibility to raise that child.

I couldn't care less about facts

Terminal? Raise it until it dies then.

*shouldn't

That's called "illegal"

@skully ^^

 

[DeletedUser]

Pebbles, I don't actually disagree with you most of those things, just to the final question of whether it is morally sound I guess

Forced upon them? Definitely not. Refer to my Genios reply. However, if consenting to have sex, the two individuals are aware of the potential outcome of such an act. Therefore, any resulting consequences were of their own doing and not a just reason to terminate a future human life.

Most people who don't want to get a kid actively try not to, the problem is that there's no 100% effective birth control yet other than a vasectomy which is rather extreme. You called it 'mistakes have consequences' in your second post but it doesn't have to be a mistake. The fetus needs the woman's body to grow so I think she should have a say in whether or not that is going to happen at all.

If only humans laid eggs...

I always feel bad for doctor that would have to do it though. Would be a really sucky part of the job. I might bring this to the debate section later.

True but honestly being a doctor in general seems really hard to me.

If I truly wanted to kill someone i could regardless of the law. If I truly wanted to get illegal drugs i could regardless of the law. A reason for there not to be a law against something can't be "because people will break it anyway".
I really do find your other arguments to very knowledge and clearly well considered but this one is just plain stupid.

Regarding the drugs, that is an interesting other debate topic actually. I'm a proponent of selling some illegal drugs recreationally but just heavily restricting and closely monitor every aspect of it. But that's a different debate entirely.

Terminal? Raise it until it dies then.

Do your research, what I mean with those illnesses is constant suffering, excruciating pain until they die. You want to put a child through that?

I couldn't care less about facts

And there we have it ladies and gentlemen.. I won't respond to you any longer

 

[Link of time]

Morally sound?

I don't know how you even asked that question

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Pebbles, I don't actually disagree with you most of those things, just to the final question of whether it is morally sound I guess

Most people who don't want to get a kid actively try not to, the problem is that there's no 100% effective birth control yet other than a vasectomy which is rather extreme. You called it 'mistakes have consequences' in your second post but it doesn't have to be a mistake. The fetus needs the woman's body to grow so I think she should have a say in whether or not that is going to happen at all.

If only humans laid eggs...


True but honestly being a doctor in general seems really hard to me.



Regarding the drugs, that is an interesting other debate topic actually. I'm a proponent of selling some illegal drugs recreationally but just heavily restricting and closely monitor every aspect of it. But that's a different debate entirely.

Do your research, what I mean with those illnesses is constant suffering, excruciating pain until they die. You want to put a child through that?


And there we have it ladies and gentlemen.. I won't respond to you any longer

I agree with me too lol

Either way, they know it isn't 100% but take the risk anyway. Still a mistake, still has a consequence. Every time I get in a car I don't have a 100% chance a seat belt will save me in a crash. But I sure do have to live with the consequences (and deserve them) if I choose not to wear one). And, if that seat belt is worn and doesn't work, I still live with the consequences because I knew driving carried an inherent risk.

And that "I could care less about facts" thing was funny.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Most people who don't want to get a kid actively try not to, the problem is that there's no 100% effective birth control yet other than a vasectomy which is rather extreme. You called it 'mistakes have consequences' in your second post but it doesn't have to be a mistake. The fetus needs the woman's body to grow so I think she should have a say in whether or not that is going to happen at all.

If only humans laid eggs...

and the award for making me laugh during an abortion debate goes to Skully.

True but honestly being a doctor in general seems really hard to me.

agreed

Regarding the drugs, that is an interesting other debate topic actually. I'm a proponent of selling some illegal drugs recreationally but just heavily restricting and closely monitor every aspect of it. But that's a different debate entirely.

Im with you on that but it doesn't change the fact that people would still break the restrictions.

Either way, they know it isn't 100% but take the risk anyway. Still a mistake, still has a consequence. Every time I get in a car I don't have a 100% chance a seat belt will save me in a crash. But I sure do have to live with the consequences (and deserve them) if I choose not to wear one). And, if that seat belt is worn and doesn't work, I still live with the consequences because I knew driving carried an inherent risk.

This is a weirdly accurate analogy that i will remember every time I get in a car

 

[DeletedUser49358]

Potential != reality. That's honestly all you need to realize. Embryos could be people yeah but they aren't yet so what's the problem in aborting them? That sounds a bit lighthearted and it's obviously an extremely difficult decision but my point stands.

This is also part of the problem with arguing that abortion is murder though as the concept of ending potential life is exactly what contraception does. Going to the basics of what pebble said you could argue that contraception use is also murder as it prevents the potential of a female egg being fertilized which in turn has the potential of bringing about life. There's a lot more to it of course and is basically using a ripple effect to say if contraception wasn't used then a life would have been formed which isn't true as its not always guarantied that a women will become pregnant but the argument can still be made.

If it doesn't work, too bad, it's your responsibility to raise that child.

I couldn't care less about facts

Terminal? Raise it until it dies then.

*shouldn't

That's called "illegal"

@skully ^^

This also plays into the 'contraception is murder' argument as you can also say that abortion is just another form of contraception, we use condoms and vasectomies to prevent the possibility of producing a child, so in a sense abortion which also prevents the formation of a child is just another form of contraception.

 

[Link of time]

No comment -_-

 

[DeletedUser]

I'll leave pebble to respond to most of this but I would just like to point out that if the cells aren't guaranteed life then they can't be guaranteed death. You can't have life without death or death without life.

Please read the whole sentence you're reply to.

It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present.

That's like saying you are guaranteed not to die as long as you are alive. It's an abstraction of reality.
It also very much contradicts "guaranteed", if you include a disclaimer excluding everything that could contradict it.

All of these are not choices by any individual. Simply medical complications. Murder has to be a conscious choice. If a mother was drugged and forced to have an abortion, I wouldn't accuse the mother of murder as she didn't choose to have the process done.

Just attempting to point out that at no point is the embryo guaranteed anything.
It is no more guaranteed life in this world as I am to become Prime Minister of the UK and President of the US simultaneously.

Guaranteed is a binary logical operation. It either is or isn't. Nothing can be "more guaranteed" or "less guaranteed" as guaranteeing itself is an absolute.

THING	CHANCE OF OCCURRENCE
x	99.9999%
y	25%
z	2%
f	0%

All of these have the exact same level of guarantee that they will happen. That is 0. There is no guarantee that any of them will occur.
Alternatively, thing "f" has a 1 level of guarantee that it won't happen. It is guaranteed never to occur.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

Please read the whole sentence you're reply to.

i did

That's like saying you are guaranteed not to die as long as you are alive. It's an abstraction of reality.
It also very much contradicts "guaranteed", if you include a disclaimer excluding everything that could contradict it.

Ok first off no it is not like saying that.
Second, the "disclaimer" is what makes it a guarantee.
Third, that's the damn point! The impeding force, when it is the choice of another human, is preventing the guarantee thus murder (insert the whole rest of pebble's argument here or wherever it should fit).

Just attempting to point out that at no point is the embryo guaranteed anything.

"It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present." I'm just going to keep using pebbles argument as you have yet to actually show how it is wrong.

It is no more guaranteed life in this world as I am to become Prime Minister of the UK and President of the US simultaneously.

Ok it has been more than covered that yes it is guaranteed in that if nothing interferes it will become a human. Forgetting all that for a second though. Did you just compare the likelihood of "becoming Prime Minister of the UK and President of the US simultaneously" to the likelihood cells becoming human? Did you seriously just do. One of those is impossible and the other happens every second of everyday.

Guaranteed is a binary logical operation. It either is or isn't. Nothing can be "more guaranteed" or "less guaranteed" as guaranteeing itself is an absolute.

THING	CHANCE OF OCCURRENCE
x	99.9999%
y	25%
z	2%
f	0%

All of these have the exact same level of guarantee that they will happen. That is 0. There is no guarantee that any of them will occur.
Alternatively, thing "f" has a 1 level of guarantee that it won't happen. It is guaranteed never to occur.

Does the whole "It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present." thing mean nothing to you?

 

[DeletedUser36697]

this is not an appropriate subject for the Forum, should be closed and locked.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

this is not an appropriate subject for the Forum, should be closed and locked.

I would disagree, considering there's no real rule against it. But feel free to report it, if you wish.

 

[DeletedUser]

i did

If you did, try replying to all of it instead of separating it where you see fit.

Ok first off no it is not like saying that.
Second, the "disclaimer" is what makes it a guarantee.
Third, that's the damn point! The impeding force, when it is the choice of another human, is preventing the guarantee thus murder (insert the whole rest of pebble's argument here or wherever it should fit).

It is exactly like saying that. You will never be dead as long as you are alive.
If you have to include a "except for, assuming that, besides when" etc. it means there is no guarantee. You're excluding things that need to be included.

Alternatively, if you want to argue that it is murder simply on the potential for life to grow from it, then everyone should be put to aborted, because they have the potential to be serial killers, mass murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.?

"It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present." I'm just going to keep using pebbles argument as you have yet to actually show how this is wrong.
Ok it has been more than covered that yes it is guaranteed in that if nothing interferes it will become a human. Forgetting all that for a second though. Did you just compare the likelihood of "becoming Prime Minister of the UK and President of the US simultaneously" to the likelihood cells becoming human? Did you seriously just do. One of those is impossible and the other happens every second of everyday.

Please reread what I was saying. I am no where comparing likelihoods. Only Guarantees.
And neither is impossible, one is simply astronomically unlikely.

Does the whole "It is guaranteed life assuming no impeding force is present." thing mean nothing to you?

It does. It is a very flawed argument.
It is exactly the same as saying "I am correct, except for when I am wrong."
Let me show you.

(thing that is not true on its own) + (exclusion transition) + (conditional statement) = true statement
(I am correct,) + (except for) + (when I am wrong) = true statement
(It is guaranteed life) + (assuming) + (no impending force is present) = true statement

The assumption itself was an attempt to evade a portion of my argument without dealing with it.
It was in response to my statement of "It is never guaranteed life beyond the clump of cells that it is."
Unless you can guarantee that every single embryo will have 0 fatal issues, the entire statement is irrelevant to my argument. I am ignoring likelihoods at this point in time, and only dealing in absolutes.

 

[DeletedUser33530]

It is exactly like saying that. You will never be dead as long as you are alive.
If you have to include a "except for, assuming that, besides when" etc. it means there is no guarantee. You're excluding things that need to be included.

That's the point. We need to exclude them for there to be a guarantee that pebble is speaking about in the argument. This is philosophy we are talking about here keep that in mind.

Alternatively, if you want to argue that it is murder simply on the potential for life to grow from it, then everyone should be put to aborted, because they have the potential to be serial killers, mass murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.?

what? Seriously what?

Please reread what I was saying. I am no where comparing likelihoods. Only Guarantees.
And neither is impossible, one is simply astronomically unlikely.

Besides the bolded, it is actually impossible. The laws of both countries would prevent such an occurrence.

It does. It is a very flawed argument.
It is exactly the same as saying "I am correct, except for when I am wrong."
Let me show you.

"I am correct, expect for when I am wrong" is a 100% accurate statement lol.

I'm sure you are going to complain that I didn't read your math below. Well I did and it doesn't change what I said above.

The assumption itself was an attempt to evade a portion of my argument without dealing with it.

In science it's called a controlled experiment. For the experiment to be controlled pebble had to exclude all other variables.

 

[DeletedUser]

That's the point. We need to exclude them for there to be a guarantee that pebble is speaking about in the argument. This is philosophy we are talking about here keep that in mind.

Follow this chain back. The "except for" clause was added after I said there was no guarantee.
It started as
"ITS MURDER BECAUSE YOURE PREVENTING GUARANTEED LIFE"
"no, it's not guaranteed."
"ITS MURDER BECAUSE YOURE PREVENTING GUARANTEED LIFE EXCEPT FOR WHEN IT ISNT GUARANTEED"
obviously an over simplification, but that is a basic summary that I hope you can follow.

what? Seriously what?

Just reread it. I may have used an extra pronoun but my meaning is not so heavily obfuscated that it is actually difficult to obtain.

Besides the bolded, it is actually impossible. The laws of both countries would prevent such an occurrence.

And laws are never changed?

"I am correct, expect for when I am wrong" is a 100% accurate statement lol.

I'm sure you are going to complain that I didn't read your math below. Well I did and it doesn't change what I said above.

Yes, the statement as a whole is correct. Again though, that was my point. As a whole, the statement is correct. It's validity is questionable without the second half.

In science it's called a controlled experiment. For the experiment to be controlled pebble had to exclude all other variables.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. I am not particularly concerned with what you might call something that is not being done here. This is so far detached from the argument that I really do not understand what your point in including it was.

I guess the only thing I can say to that is that excluding every variable to get a guaranteed result when those variable cannot be reliably controlled over larger populations proves that the result elsewhere is not guaranteed. If you have to control something to get a result, where it is not controlled the result is not guaranteed. That was my argument from this one line at the start.

The embryo is not guaranteed to be anything beyond an embryo. It is likely, yes, that it would continue to develop. But it is not guaranteed.
That was my initial argument. You cannot charge someone for something that is not actually done.
An embryo is not a human. Murder is something only humans take offense to. Ergo, you cannot murder an embryo.
You may kill it, you may prevent it from growing, you may traumatize it. But it is not murder to put it to death, as it is simply not human.
It may become human, but potential is not good enough to convict of a crime.

 

[Link of time]

Convict of a crime? What are you talking about?

 

[DeletedUser]

Maybe consider reading the OP.

 

[Link of time]

Op? Maybe consider not using abbreviations.

 

[DeletedUser8396]

Op? Maybe consider not using abbreviations.

Opening post(er)? It's VERY common.

 

[DeletedUser]

Op? Maybe consider not using abbreviations.

Has literally been a thing longer than some people on this forum have been alive.