Gallup Pro-life/choice

choopie911 wrote: Mack wrote: 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.

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

Can a fetus go on facebook?

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT

/debate over, victorious cries from FB

Peter Parker wrote: 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.

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

Peter Parker wrote: 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.

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.

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

Reb Cpl wrote: You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument?

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.