Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gallup Pro-life/choice

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 6:21pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

. . . just a biological process
So's breathing.


What does that have to do with anything that we have ever discussed in any thread on this forum since it started?


I believe hes responding to your implication that since conception is "just a biological process" it can be terminated without moral problems. 

And to add on to his point, so is thinking.
Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 6:25pm
Yes, but those happen after you're already born, and are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Back to Top
Darur View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Stare directly into my avatar...

Joined: 03 May 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9174
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 6:36pm
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

Yes, but those happen after you're already born, and are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.


 . . . What?

Conception takes place between two sexually matured adults.  Its genetic mixing between the two into an offspring. 

Unless you're speaking from the perspective of the fetus? But that sort of defeats your point, since aren't you arguing that conception is just a biological process to the parents?

Besides, breathing*, consumption of food*, etc. all are processes the fetus does during development.  That's one of the reasons you have an umbilical cord and placenta. Not to mention that's when your cells are actively replicating and subdividing, a process which happens in and out of the womb.

I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to FE here . . .

* - technically speaking

Real Men play Tuba

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!
DONT CLICK ME!!1
Back to Top
Bolt3 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
What?

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bolt3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:38pm
Originally posted by Darur Darur wrote:

your implication that since conception is "just a biological process" it can be terminated without moral problems.


I don't think that's what he meant.
<Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
Back to Top
Frozen Balls View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1, filter dodge, 1.28.10

Joined: 14 June 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5865
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Frozen Balls Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:41pm
Can a fetus go on facebook?

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT

/debate over, victorious cries from FB

Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:06pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Curious to see where you are headed on this....
 
Here:
 
Scenario 1:  Doctors abort fetus to save mother's life.
Scenario 2:  Doctors kill young child to save mother's life.
 
 
Premise 1:  The vast majority of people find scenario 1 morally acceptable, if unfortunate.
 
Premise 2:  The vast majority of people find scenario 2 morally unacceptable.
 
Premise 3:  If there is no moral difference between a fetus and young child, then Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are exactly the same.
 
Conclusion:  The vast majority of people find that there is a moral difference between a fetus and a young child.
 
 
tl;dr:  If you think abortions to save the mother are ok, then you don't think that fetuses are just unborn children, and you value fetuses less than children.  A lot less.
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:15pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Curious to see where you are headed on this....
 
Here:
 
Scenario 1:  Doctors abort fetus to save mother's life.
Scenario 2:  Doctors kill young child to save mother's life.
 
 
Premise 1:  The vast majority of people find scenario 1 morally acceptable, if unfortunate.
 
Premise 2:  The vast majority of people find scenario 2 morally unacceptable.
 
Premise 3:  If there is no moral difference between a fetus and young child, then Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are exactly the same.
 
Conclusion:  The vast majority of people find that there is a moral difference between a fetus and a young child.
 
 
tl;dr:  If you think abortions to save the mother are ok, then you don't think that fetuses are just unborn children, and you value fetuses less than children.  A lot less.
 


You're confusing the second option with something that happens in real life.

It doesn't.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:21pm
Originally posted by ParielIsBack ParielIsBack wrote:

[You're confusing the second option with something that happens in real life.

It doesn't.
 
Correct - because it is morally repugnant.
 
Exactly my point.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:36pm
Yes, there is a difference between a child and a fetus, of course there is.

Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 11:17am
Originally posted by choopie911 choopie911 wrote:

Yes, there is a difference between a child and a fetus, of course there is.

 
You may think so, but there are obviously millions of people who say that fetuses are nothing other than unborn children.  My point is that even those who profess to hold this belief actually don't - the overwhelming majority of Americans (at least) do in fact accept a moral differential between a baby and a fetus, whether they admit it to themselves or not.
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:22pm
Originally posted by Peter Parker Peter Parker wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Curious to see where you are headed on this....
 
Here:
 
Scenario 1:  Doctors abort fetus to save mother's life.
Scenario 2:  Doctors kill young child to save mother's life.
 
 
Premise 1:  The vast majority of people find scenario 1 morally acceptable, if unfortunate.
 
Premise 2:  The vast majority of people find scenario 2 morally unacceptable.
 
Premise 3:  If there is no moral difference between a fetus and young child, then Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are exactly the same.
 
Conclusion:  The vast majority of people find that there is a moral difference between a fetus and a young child.
 
 
tl;dr:  If you think abortions to save the mother are ok, then you don't think that fetuses are just unborn children, and you value fetuses less than children.  A lot less.
 
 
Curse you and your logic.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:33pm
Peter---

Name me one real disease where the only valid option at survival for a mother is killing her already born child.



Because I can name one just off the top of my head where having the fetus in the mother is life threatening....


And that is where the difference lies.

Edited by Linus - 21 May 2009 at 12:34pm

Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:38pm

Hypothetic \Hy`po*thet"ic\, Hypothetical \Hy`po*thet"ic*al\, a. [L. hypotheticus, Gr. ?: cf. F. hypoth['e]tique.]

Characterized by, or of the nature of, an hypothesis; conditional; assumed without proof, for the purpose of reasoning and deducing proof, or of accounting for some fact or phenomenon.

 
(emphasis added)
 
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:46pm
Eclampsia. Look it up.

A real disease that can kill the mother if the baby is left in her.


The average, prudent person bases their opinions on fact, not hypothetical situations. The difference between killing a fetus to make a mom live, and killing a 2 year old to make a mom live, is because the former one is a reality, the latter is a fictitious view from someone trying to win a debate.

Edited by Linus - 21 May 2009 at 12:47pm

Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:49pm
You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument?




Back to Top
Benjichang View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I pwned Leroy Jenkins!

Joined: 03 January 2004
Location: R'lyeh
Status: Offline
Points: 12518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benjichang Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:53pm
Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument?


Isn't that how reasoning works?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by Reb Cpl Reb Cpl wrote:

You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument?


 
It is not a jab - it is a fully-grown argument.
 
And yes, it is based in part in a hypothetical situation.  That's how discussions of morality are conducted.  Morality, by its very nature, consists largely of concepts that cannot morally be tested, and hypotheticals are therefore essential.  Any legitimate discussion of morality involves a series of slightly-different hypotheticals, which allow you to hone in on the specific moral distinctions at hand - as I did here.
 
Morality is principle-based, not fact-based.  The facts are merely specific applications of those moral principles.  Limiting the discussion to specific real-life scenarios will never get you to the underlying principles.

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:15pm
It is not a fully grown argument because it has no basis in reality.


Again, your argument holds no water because it's unrealistic.

You asked where the difference was. THAT is where the difference is.

Edited by Linus - 21 May 2009 at 1:20pm

Back to Top
Hysteria View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - Language, 9/25

Joined: 02 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4364
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hysteria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:28pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

It is not a fully grown argument because it has no basis in reality.


Again, your argument holds no water because it's unrealistic.

You asked where the difference was. THAT is where the difference is.


Except he is discussing the underlying morality of both situations, not the chance that they will actually happen.

That's like discussing the morality of masturbation.  Whether it happens or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.
Back to Top
choopie911 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Commie Canuck

Joined: 01 June 2003
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 30745
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote choopie911 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:39pm
I agree, impossible hypothetical questions are kind of useless in this. It's just a way to push a debate the way you want to. It wouldn't ever happen, so why plan for it?

Car manufactures don't take impossible situations into account when building cars. How many "elephant trample proof" cars do you see?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.