Terri's Law overturning/checks and balances?

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I was in a hurry when I typed that, too, SE, which may go to show why it seems a little frazzled, but if there are things wrong with my argument, go ahead and point them out, and then I will fix the problems by going more in depth.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

How about making a load of assertion with absolutely no backing and including a slough of invalid and ridiculous comparisons? Which pretty much covers every sentence in that post. there's a marked difference between a tree and a human being. There's a marked difference between a sperm cell and a fetus.

Whether you believe the fetus is a human being is another matter. There's no way to demonstrate it besides deciding on a definition and applying it. What YOU'RE doing, however, is not that. It's not the expression of an opinion. It's stating that this definition obviously flows from what HoM and I have been saying, which is tacitly not true and there's no way you can derive your conclusions from our statements without relying on a bizarre definition that no reasonable person agrees with.

Your comparisons simply do NOT connect to what we're saying. Your assertions do NOT have the firm ground you claim for them, nor do they have anything close to it.

plus, it's absolutely inexcusable to make such wild accusations without reading the arguments being made.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

A) What is bizarre?  Is bizarre just what you aren't used to?  So you are automatically rejecting what is not common?

B) I was comparing plants to an unborn person because they have the same amount of awareness to their surroundings.  An unborn child respoinds to stimuli, so do plants.  An unborn child holds no knowledge, neither do plants.  I am comparring them because an unborn child is just that, unborn.  If it is not fully devoloped yet it is not a person.

C) Sperm and an unborn child are almost the same thing.  The only difference is one is more developed.  Otherwise, the "child" has no more awareness than the sperm.  And the idea behind it is stopping the child from being born is the goal of both using birth control and abortions, to stop a child from being born.  Why is it right to use one method and wrong to use the other.  I mean, they do the same thing in the long run.

D) I don't see anything wrong with my argument against religious backings, which I DID see in this thread.

E) Isn't EVERYTHING in this thread the statement of opinion, SE?  We are arguing about our opinions, so pretty much everything you say here will be an opinion.

F) I didn't read all the arguments here, no.  I didn't have the time.  Refer me back to one of your arguments with the page it's on if you want me to specifically read it.

[Archon]

The problem here Ehlers is that he was giving an overview of his arguments. Pick any one to debate about and he will go more in depth as far as reasons. I have debated with him and that is how we generally start.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Now, you also said that not giving abortion is a way of punishing the irresponsible parents.

I never said that. Nor did anyone in this thread except for you.

And if it is the parents mistake for having the child, I assume you are pro birth control/protection.

Bad assumption. I haven't stated an opinion one way or another, for what married people who don't want more children should do. I HAVE stated that unmarried people should not have sex.

It's very unintelligent to ever use any sort of biblical reference to prove anything for two reasons.  Reason A; people believe in different things, and there is no religion that is a majority of human beliefs, every religion is outnumbered by the others, so you'll never win like that.  Reason B;  You can use the bible to prove anything if you want to.

I'm not trying to prove anything at all. However, I have every right I want to make biblical references. Saying it is unintelligent is insulting a huge fraction of the population. It's definitely a very insensitive thing to say.

Do we really need more people than are WANTED in this world?  I mean, we have enough already.  World hunger, overpopulation, unemployment rates, there's just not enough to go around.  The more people we have, the quicker we are going to destroy the planet, and then we wont have ANY more people.

Those are entirely different debates. I dispute world hunger, overpopulation, and unemployment. The world is much better off today than it ever was. We just have poor distribution. But again, that is something for another thread, and I don't feel like getting into it.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

a) nice spin. You going into politics?

B) you obviously have very little experience with unborn children. The fetus is very responsive to human contact and aware of its situation from a very early age. At least, as aware as one can be expected to be when one has never experienced anything else. They learn a lot of things. THere are numerous studies demonstrating that environmental influences, not just chemical/food ones, can have a huge impact on unborn children.

C) I'll refer you to the previous argument about awareness. Try to get some experience or learning about what you're speaking of before making this statement.

D) I didn't counter your religious poitn of view, but since you specifically bring it up again, you're still wrong. Relying wholly on a "rational"/secular point of view eliminate a huge realm of potential, and valid argument. It immediately makes at least as big an assumption as any theist is liable to make. This is bad argument structure.

E) and F) No, not all of it is opinion. Which is exactly what's wrong with your arguments. Much of what is being said is reasoned theory. Theory is NOT the same as opinion. And if you don't have the time to read the thread to see that, then you have no business responding to it. Seriously. If you don't have time to read an argument, you should not respond to it, because it just makes you say irrelevant things. Go back, read the thread, CAREFULLY, and then respond to the ideas being presented.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Abortion is a way to avoid responsibility for mistakes by pretending the mistakes never happened.

Ookla, it's pretty clear here that you are saying that because the parents were irresponsible they should have to have the child, as a way of showing them their mistakes so that they wont make them again.  That's exactly what a punishment is.


SE, while it is true that sperm and a fetus are different, I'm trying to get a broad view across.  Using birth control does, in the long run, do the same thing as getting an abortion.  And by using birth control, you are, in fact, preventing a child from being born, but in a differenent way.  I don't see anything wrong with that, and that was my point.  And you said...

one has never experienced anything else

Exactly.  If it hasn't experienced anything but being in the fetus it isn't going to miss being outside of it.  And sure, the fetus is responsive to human contact, of course I understand this.  But if you are trying to disprove my comparisson between an unborn child and a plant, that's not going to do it.  

THere are numerous studies demonstrating that environmental influences

Plants are extremely responsive to their surroundings as well.  But the baby fetus is only responding by trying to survive, and instinct tells it to respond.  Plants respond to human contact as well.  They respond to their enviroment.  They respond to weather changes and the seasons.  The respond to internal changes.  So while a fetus might be reactive, I hardly think it is as reactive as a born person at the age that it stops developing due to an abortion.

SE, you are also overlooking the fact that an abortion can be done before the fetus forms.  An abortion can be done to an embryo, causing it to stop developing.  You are acting like it can only happen to a fetus, which I'll grant you is more highly developed than an embryo.

It's very unintelligent to ever use any sort of biblical reference to prove anything

Saying it is unintelligent is insulting a huge fraction of the population.

I'm curious, how is that insulting?  I never said that it was unintelligent to believe in the bible, I just said that using it to prove something is not a great move.  And you did try to do this with the statement...

That's exactly what Satan's plan was before the world was created, to save us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship. But that's what life IS. A life with no pain, strife, and hardship isn't much of a life at all!

And, again, I am NOT saying religion is wrong, because that would be a very opinionated statement.  However, you can use the bible to "prove" just about anything, Ookla.  That's why there are so many fractions off the same ideals.  That's why so many religious wars have broken out in history between different God worshipping factions.  We aren't even talking about pagans, ect.  Just people who believe in the same God, but interpret what he said differently.  You can't even necissarily use the bible to prove something religious to someone else using that same book to counter debate.  You are hardly going to get far trying to use the bible to prove something else.  So, I wasn't insulting your religion or anything, sorry if it came across like that, I was just saying that it's not the greatest move in a debate to turn to religous means, that's all.

No, not all of it is opinion.

Not all of mine is opinion either.  All of my stated opinions are based on facts, the opinion is just how I interpret those facts.

[stacer]

Ookla, it's pretty clear here that you are saying that because the parents were irresponsible they should have to have the child, as a way of showing them their mistakes so that they wont make them again.  That's exactly what a punishment is.

Actually, what he's saying is that they must live with the consequences of their actions. If they view it as punishment, it doesn't matter. They've already made the choice to have the possibility of bringing a child into the world by having sex. Period.

This is much different from using birth control, but even with birth control there's a certain percentage of chance that pregnancy will result, and people should be prepared for the consequences. Hence, the best thing to do would be to wait till you're in a position in which you can live with the consequences of your choices--a position in which you're ready to accept the responsibility of being a parent.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

A punishment is the consequences of your actions.  So the consequences, if negative, of your actions is a punishment.

I never said birth control was foolproof, nor did I hint or imply that.  I DID say that birth control and abortions do the same thing, which they do.  The both prevent a baby from being born.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

so it's only experience that makes us human, Gorgon? That means you have much less worth than I. For I'm almost twice as old as you. Does that means it's less a crime to kill you than me?

You missed entirely my point about response. They develop and respond in human ways. the Fetus DOES learn.

punishment is one TYPE of consequence for action, Gorgon. it is not the ONLY consequence. That is a major flaw in your reasoning. A square is a quadrilateral, but not all quadrilaterals have 90 degree angles and all equal sides.

[Sigyn]

I almost feel as though some people in this thread are arguing just for the sake of arguing, but I'll put in my two cents anyway. Mainly, I just want to say that birth control and abortion are not the same thing even if they bring about the same ends "in the long run." Many different means can bring about the same ends, but that doesn't make the means equal. Next, your argument for why a fetus is on par with a plant is flawed. Plants don't have personalities, a fetus does. Don't even try to argue with me on this point because I've been pregnant and you haven't so experience is on my side. As for the embryo vs. fetus issues, you're just making the argument more complicated when you can't even convince anyone of the parts you've already argued. This whole thread is getting tired.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I am NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING. If you think I am trying to prove something, well, I'm not even going to try to prove that I'm not trying to prove anything!

I think people have already said in this thread how responsibility and punishment are different.

Not having children and killing children before they are born are different things. Maybe you don't see the difference between it, but I don't see the difference between killing a child before it is born or killing it after it is born. Same result, the child is still dead. Whereas if you don't have sex, or even if you use birth control, you don't end up with a bunch of dead children.