Abortion

Originally Posted by maddoggy00

@Doc the point for pro-lifers isn't who determines if a fetus gets to live or die. The entire point of the argument is that it is life. The idea is you are ending a life. Who does it matters not. What you need to argue against in this case is that a fetus is not life. I think you've completely missed the entire argument here (not mine, the generic "pro-life" argument) if you don't understand, or at least acknowledge, that viewpoint. In this case, I think it is valid because we are comparing a life for a life, or perhaps potential life for a potential life, however you want to look at it.

Actually, people who are comparing eagle eggs to human fetuses are comparing involuntary termination with voluntary termination. It has nothing to do with the "pro-life" bullshit. You are comparing to entirely different situations in an attempt to win a strawman argument. You aren't arguing on equal grounding, and you move the goalpost when someones undermines your point. You're complaining about laws that, to you and the others in the thread at least, value an eagle egg more than a human fetus when that is entirely not the case. The law values the explicit right for an eagle to breed. Just like there are laws that value a persons right to breed. I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure there's a fucking massive punishment to conduct an involuntary abortion, and I bet it's a shitload more than just a fine.

And I haven't missed any argument, I am simply saying that comparing an eagle egg to a fetus is sheer idiocy.

Haha. You really shouldn't bother arguing with Empire or Doc, you're just going to get burned.

inb4 I didn't mean to thank you

Originally Posted by Rance-Sama

Haha. You really shouldn't bother arguing with Empire or Doc, you're just going to get burned.

inb4 I didn't mean to thank you

First off, I'd like to formally thank you for thanking me!

Until Doc's last post, I didn't even fully understand her point. Simply saying "this is dumb" isn't logic, or an argument. It is a very good point, but poorly communicated until now. I still find it interesting, though, because of reasons I've already outlined. In short, at what age is it ok to kill your kid? The law says it is illegal to kill your kid if he's 5 yrs old. It's illegal at 4 months after birth. Currently, it's illegal 3 months before they are delivered from the mother, but as long as it's before that, it's ok. The controlling variable between those circumstances regarding age is not that the mother commits the act, but rather at what point is the fetus considered to be it's own living thing. Once the fetus is of a certain age, it doesn't matter if the mother does it, or someone else. It's tried equally as manslaughter or murder. By that reasoning, I still find the eagle egg interesting. Is it a proof? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean I can't find it interesting or relevant.

Empire is just being a jerk

He hasn't said one threaded, coherent thought, and just says I keep side tracking instead of trying to understand anything of what I'm saying. His points are mostly valid (a few of them blatantly aren't, for which when I provide contrary evidence, it isn't even acknowledged on his end), but they are standalone and aren't weaved into the bigger picture. My "sidetracking" is related, just if you don't understand my entire viewpoint, maybe it does come off as confusing. Wouldn't really call any of that a burn. I find it quite interesting, though, that after digging back a bit and looking at some of the posts to get an idea of the conversation in some of these threads, Ferris Bueller says some pretty winged statement, yet Empire does not attack him. Also interesting. I'm doing my best to be patient and not return the disrespect, if for no other reason that I'm staff and want to set the air as such.

But uhh, Empire I'm not sure I understand much of your last post. Based on what I think I got from it: I'm not saying my definition of murder is the ultimate correct one and everyone should abide by my decisions and change the law. I'm saying that laws can be changed, and should be periodically reevaluated. The hour before congress passed the third trimester law, the majority in that room were saying that the law was unlawful, were they not? That's not shock-value, that's a legitimate statement. Suggesting the timeline of when an abortion is considered illegal is a reasonable idea. If everyone agreed with the abortion law as it stands, then in what universe would it still be such a hot topic of debate? I know plenty of people who simply vote on candidates based on whether they are pro- life or choice. I think that's a pretty ignorant and inappropriate way to vote, but many people do it.

You just said "In short, at what age is it ok to kill your kid?" Which is rhetorical in nature.
-But again, it's using a false analogy in order to prove your point.

It's jumping the shark, and just going "hey i'm right" before explaining yourself. I mean you've already posted 3-4 post with several paragraphs in each. Instead of backtracking and trying to be politically correct, shouldn't you just explain your viewpoint in full?
-You can keep asking rhetorical questions and acting like that explains anything, but I don't see anyone buying it.

------------------------------

No calling something murder just for the shock value of the word is misleading. It does not fall under the definition of murder. Please refrain from labeling something that is not murder, murder. That's all that I'm asking here.
-------------------------------------------------

Oh btw I already argued with Ferris/Martin on this subject if you read the first few pages. Pretty much already finished there so crying about "unequal treatment" is pretty silly.

Originally Posted by Empire

No calling something murder just for the shock value of the word is misleading. It does not fall under the definition of murder. Please refrain from labeling something that is not murder, murder. That's all that I'm asking here.

Please explain then how congress (and many civilians...) was calling 3rd trimester abortions murder 1 hour before the law was passed, or in other words, was calling something murder that was not considered murder under the law, yet my suggesting the same is now improper labeling.

And if I seem like I'm jumping around, just ask me to clarify. I don't have time to sit down here for 12 hours and type a manuscript on my position, so I'm only laying out key points.

Originally Posted by maddoggy00

Please explain then how congress (and many civilians...) was calling 3rd trimester abortions murder 1 hour before the law was passed, or in other words, was calling something murder that was not considered murder under the law, yet my suggesting the same is now improper labeling.

Again, if you label all abortion its improper. If you want to label such and have a good reason(i.e. explaining yourself), then it's fine. Throwing out the phrase "this is murder" is just showing you don't take both murder and the topic seriously.

aaaaaand again, giving us some silly statement like "1hour before the law passed people were calling it murder" is just stupid. 1 hour before it passed people were calling it "not murder" as well. So.....kind of a moot point there.

Now I'm not arguing 3rd trimester abortions are right, but it's pretty stupid to argue that because some random person said it's wrong, that it's actually wrong.

Originally Posted by Empire

Again, if you label all abortion its improper. If you want to label such and have a good reason(i.e. explaining yourself), then it's fine. Throwing out the phrase "this is murder" is just showing you don't take both murder and the topic seriously.

aaaaaand again, giving us some silly statement like "1hour before the law passed people were calling it murder" is just stupid. 1 hour before it passed people were calling it "not murder" as well. So.....kind of a moot point there.

Now I'm not arguing 3rd trimester abortions are right, but it's pretty stupid to argue that because some random person said it's wrong, that it's actually wrong.

All ideas start with someone, don't they? And I'm definitely not the first one; there's many organizations out there already funding for this stuff. And you're missing my point. Of course people were also calling it "not murder" at the same time. But those people were saying the law was lawful. The majority in congress at the time, were saying the law was unlawful, which is what you're telling me is ridiculous for me to say. I'm proposing if they, and many civilians, were saying the law was unlawful, and then the law was changed, it's quite within reason for me to do the same. The example is just to help me communicate my point more effectively. There are many more, but one will do.

I never said all abortion, I just said abortion. I already outlined which abortion I was talking about (after ~14 weeks); I think it's silly to specifically mention that every single time. That, my friend, is semantics.

Originally Posted by argyros

You don't believe me?
How many people do you think do abortions a year?
Over 40 million people do and about 20 Million are done as unsafe abortions.
You have to understand most countries are not like America....
Not even safe abortions are safe all the time. There is always the chance that it could go wrong.

% of death from safe abortions != % of death from unsafe abortions
Unsafe abortions comes mostly from people who live in countries where abortion is illegal or extremely hard to obtain
Making abortion illegal has and will create a black market for it, and black market cares much more about profit than our current abortion clinics

Originally Posted by 666HiddenMaster666

% of death from safe abortions != % of death from unsafe abortions
Unsafe abortions comes mostly from people who live in countries where abortion is illegal or extremely hard to obtain
Making abortion illegal has and will create a black market for it, and black market cares much more about profit than our current abortion clinics

Well also unsafe abortions are just like any unsafe medical procedure. Unsafe surgery or anything involving internal organs can be pretty 50/50 tbh. And even if you don't die on the spot, the life can be limited thereafter.

Originally Posted by Empire

Well also unsafe abortions are just like any unsafe medical procedure. Unsafe surgery or anything involving internal organs can be pretty 50/50 tbh. And even if you don't die on the spot, the life can be limited thereafter.

Yea, and extreme stress from it doesn't help much either

[COLOR="Black"]So it's murder because it's lower chance for miscarriage or because it's against the law in some states?

I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. Are you just stating the obvious and being a dick, or are you still using half-assed logic to justify buzzwords?

Hmmm..... either way, you keep making false analogies to murder.

Originally Posted by maddoggy00

n short, at what age is it ok to kill your kid?

Originally Posted by maddoggy00

2- All human life has a set price. How much would it take for you to be willing to kill someone?

Originally Posted by Empire

So it's murder because it's lower chance for miscarriage or because it's against the law in some states?

I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. Are you just stating the obvious and being a dick, or are you still using half-assed logic to justify buzzwords?

Hmmm..... either way, you keep making false analogies to murder.

Well murder is based on both.
But towards this both of you would be wrong as it wouldn't be murder, it would be a Homicide...

Let me ask you a question what do you classify as murder and killing? Also what makes a human being? Is it based on their genes or the way they look?

Originally Posted by Empire

So it's murder because it's lower chance for miscarriage or because it's against the law in some states?

I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. Are you just stating the obvious and being a dick, or are you still using half-assed logic to justify buzzwords?

Hmmm..... either way, you keep making false analogies to murder.

Abortion between 14 and 28 weeks is currently not considered murder, since it is acceptable to do it. I'm saying I think it should be considered murder. For it to be considered murder, the law must be rewritten, since what is defined as murder is dependent on law. And my last few posts have been saying my suggesting change in the law is within reason. This is because after 14 weeks, the chances of a miscarriage plummet, resulting in a low failure rate, somewhere around less than 1% in the US. An abortion between 14 and 28 weeks then equates to a ~99% chance a fully healthy potential life ending. In my mind, it is reasonable to consider that pretty much 100%. In economics, this is analogous to opportunity cost. If you go to college, and then earn $X more per year, to determine how much your college helped you financially in the long run, you must not just consider how much more you're making minus your student loans; you must also consider how much you would have earned in those 4-5 years you instead were studying at college. That money never existed, but it would have been real had you chose it.

In regards to how much a life is worth, this is looking at human nature, and a thought somewhat separate to the existing abortion law. I would argue that most/all people have, at some point, wanted to kill or hurt someone at some level in their psyche. In most real-life situation, no one is offering you money to do follow through on what goes on in your head. And the result is probably most clearly explained through Altruism: because of the consequences in those real-life situations, the person <thinking> chooses it is in their best interest to not kill the other person. The thought still happened, but there's no one out there offering you money for compensation for your risk (unless you're in the mafia or a spy or something else unusual). But, if someone was offering you increasing amounts of money to tempt you to do it, then I am proposing the value at the breaking point, where someone then says "i'll do it", is the $ value of that person should the deed be carried out by them. And the only reason I brought this up at all was trying to tie in the eagle egg idea from one perspective.

Originally Posted by maddoggy00

Abortion between 14 and 28 weeks is currently not considered murder, since it is acceptable to do it. I'm saying I think it should be considered murder. For it to be considered murder, the law must be rewritten, since what is defined as murder is dependent on law. And my last few posts have been saying my suggesting change in the law is within reason. This is because after 14 weeks, the chances of a miscarriage plummet, resulting in a low failure rate, somewhere around less than 1% in the US. An abortion between 14 and 28 weeks then equates to a ~99% chance a fully healthy potential life ending. In my mind, it is reasonable to consider that pretty much 100%. In economics, this is analogous to opportunity cost. If you go to college, and then earn $X more per year, to determine how much your college helped you financially in the long run, you must not just consider how much more you're making minus your student loans; you must also consider how much you would have earned in those 4-5 years you instead were studying at college. That money never existed, but it would have been real had you chose it.

In regards to how much a life is worth, this is looking at human nature, and a thought somewhat separate to the existing abortion law. I would argue that most/all people have, at some point, wanted to kill or hurt someone at some level in their psyche. In most real-life situation, no one is offering you money to do follow through on what goes on in your head. And the result is probably most clearly explained through Altruism: because of the consequences in those real-life situations, the person <thinking> chooses it is in their best interest to not kill the other person. The thought still happened, but there's no one out there offering you money for compensation for your risk (unless you're in the mafia or a spy or something else unusual). But, if someone was offering you increasing amounts of money to tempt you to do it, then I am proposing the value at the breaking point, where someone then says "i'll do it", is the $ value of that person should the deed be carried out by them. And the only reason I brought this up at all was trying to tie in the eagle egg idea from one perspective.

Do you.....believe in everything you do because of some false analogy? Like instead of believing in a subject because of it, you believe it because it's similar to another subject? I'm sure some psychology students would love to study you.

I mean equating abortion to the opportunity cost of college....why? I mean you could have summed that up to cause and effect of "if you were not born you wouldn't be here", but to use opportunity cost? Why would you be so incredibly stupid?

Let me ask you, would you rather go through childbirth*(which sucks for months before even), pay those expenses up to that, take off work, raise a child(which cost a lot in both effort and money) or give him to adoption(which is a whole new mess), all for the sake of a child you didn't want to have or take a small amount of time, a little money, and have an abortion?
-note: this is rhetorical.

Because that's opportunity cost in relation. Not this improper relation to cause and effect.
----------------------

Altruism is the unselfish behavior for the welfare of others, you used it in the exact opposite context. What you meant to use was Egotism.

But the stupidity of that argument is:
1. Offering money for a life does not make the value of that life the money offered. If I offered you to kill Ghandi for $5 and you take it, does that define a person's life worth $5? No. That's simply what it took for someone to do an action. Which in that regard is a personal/unique matter for every individual. For one person it might take 5, for another 5 billion. That's not even counting the "bargaining" people might do or the refusal to do so at all.

2. It's also assuming that people won't notice the obvious trap. It's a bad argument to begin with, but when someone gives X amount you then turn it to go "oh well shouldn't abortions be that much?" or try to relate it in some sense. It's how you've tried to relate stuff so far, so I wouldn't be surprised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So then we get to miscarriages.

So what if pregnancies have 0% miscarriage rate in the future? Well then by that logic all abortion should be illegal, which leads us to the problem with the logic.

Miscarriages are not the reason abortions are set at 14-24 weeks, nor should they be. They are a problem with pregnancy and actually miscarriage is just the term for losing the child in pregnancy naturally.

Saying abortion is murder because it may eventually survive in modern times is just stupid though. It has what, 10-20% higher chance, and that's where you draw the line?

Why? Does a 10-20% average really mean that much to call it murder? Lol seems pretty flimsy to me.

With regards to opportunity cost - I am not at all talking about anything that has to do with money in terms of abortion. I'm talking about the life of the baby itself. The opportunity is the life; it would have existed if chosen. In Roe vs. Wade this is called "viability" specifically regarding a fetus (see below). Please reread what I already said with that in mind.

The "their" does not refer to the individual exclusively, which is how I'm guessing you interpreted it.

Originally Posted by Empire

Miscarriages are not the reason abortions are set at 14-24 weeks, nor should they be. They are a problem with pregnancy and actually miscarriage is just the term for losing the child in pregnancy naturally.

Saying abortion is murder because it may eventually survive in modern times is just stupid though. It has what, 10-20% higher chance, and that's where you draw the line?

Why? Does a 10-20% average really mean that much to call it murder? Lol seems pretty flimsy to me.

So you are also saying the Supreme Court is stupid? For instance, Roe vs. Wade outlines the term "viability" as the point when a fetus can sustain life with artificial aide outside the whom, and uses this transition point as the line where it is no longer legal to have an abortion, except for unusual circumstance. This viability term is also used to describe avoiding a miscarriage. 40 years ago, the fetus usually reached viability around 26-28 weeks, according to the scientists who witnessed at the time. 40 years later, our technology has increased significantly, and thus the viability point.

I would bear in mind, though, that 90% of all abortions happen in the 1st trimester anyway. So it's not like I'm proposing that all of a sudden 70% of abortions wouldn't be possible anymore.

Interesting poll for you

Edit:

Originally Posted by argyros

Well murder is based on both.
But towards this both of you would be wrong as it wouldn't be murder, it would be a Homicide...

Let me ask you a question what do you classify as murder and killing? Also what makes a human being? Is it based on their genes or the way they look?

I agree with webster's definition of a homicide and murder... A homicide is killing a person. A fetus <28 weeks under the current law is not considered a human being. I would propose that aborting a fetus after 14 weeks is murder/homicide based on the age of the fetus and it is a separate organism to the mother, which is when the chances of miscarriage are negligible under normal circumstances.
I have no clue what you're talking about regarding genes or the way they look. What does that have to do with abortions or homicides?

Similar Threads

Tags for this Thread