Gipper
Member
Posts: 59
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by Gipper on Sept 18, 2013 15:19:37 GMT
1). Abortion should be legal for that express purpose then. It's not killing until second trimester. To get technical, early abortion is a humane way to control overpopulation...which is a huge problem in the world today. We have more people than we have resources, and that's most of our issue with poverty. I, myself, am not a supporter of population control...period. There are ways to work around population issues with animals and humans. 2). So you hunt deer not for food, but because they get "annoying" and "inconvenient"? Abortion shouldn't be used as population control. Everyone deserves a chance at living. Killing a person for population control is wrong. The point I was trying to make with the deer hunting is that it is beneficial...the deer that were killed were eaten. It was fair game... the deer had a chance to run...the baby doesn't get to even try. Ok so we should solve our population control issue by killing actual humans that are alive, and giving them a chance to run before we shoot them? There are better ways to handle deer population then shooting them and I can tell you for a fact that is not the purpose of hunting. People go out there and shoot deer for the fun of it, and leave the dead bodies there to rot. It is purely for sport these days, most people don't hunt for food anymore. They buy it at the store.
|
|
rserling
Member
Posts: 52
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by rserling on Sept 18, 2013 15:47:58 GMT
I will say that the things going on in those factories are inhumane and need to be stopped. I have been into processing plants that were never cruel. All processing plants should be humane.. something to keep in mind... we are killing animals for food... the baby (alive yet or not) is just being killed because some terrible parent doesn't want it.. there is no reason to kill a baby except for a rape victim or if the woman's life is in danger..while for animals... we are killing them for a legitimate reason, but it should be done humanely. Right now I would be agreeable to allowing all abortions up to the second trimester (preferably the first) if all government funding was cut and insurance did not cover it unless the woman's life was in danger. And of course teenagers needing parental consent to get it done. This would be a massive improvement.. unless it brought down the number of abortions done each year... I would still try to push for more limitations. ~DarkShadow I'm not sure if I understand your logic. Animals should die because people want hamburgers, but fetuses cannot be aborted if a woman is basing said choice on the course of her entire life? Which is a much bigger deal than a few hamburgers or Chicken McNuggets if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 18, 2013 20:07:20 GMT
Abortion shouldn't be used as population control. Everyone deserves a chance at living. Killing a person for population control is wrong. The point I was trying to make with the deer hunting is that it is beneficial...the deer that were killed were eaten. It was fair game... the deer had a chance to run...the baby doesn't get to even try. Ok so we should solve our population control issue by killing actual humans that are alive, and giving them a chance to run before we shoot them? There are better ways to handle deer population then shooting them and I can tell you for a fact that is not the purpose of hunting. People go out there and shoot deer for the fun of it, and leave the dead bodies there to rot. It is purely for sport these days, most people don't hunt for food anymore. They buy it at the store.[/ quote] That wasn't the point of me saying the baby doesn't even stand a chance. It was to explain the unfairness of it. I don't hunt for just fun... if I kill something..I eat it... and just about everyone in the surrounding area does to. Something that has occurred to me (you and John liberty) . You both have used this animal cruelty thing as your argument. I also remember getting slammed for using evolution as an argument since I didn't believe in it. You all are whininh about how terrible it is we kill animals...but you continue to eat meat. I recall you saying that you eat meat and I know for a fact John does. You both are using something you are obviously completely against as your main argument...yet you support it by eating meat... ~DarkShadow
|
|
Gipper
Member
Posts: 59
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by Gipper on Sept 18, 2013 23:41:47 GMT
Ok so we should solve our population control issue by killing actual humans that are alive, and giving them a chance to run before we shoot them? There are better ways to handle deer population then shooting them and I can tell you for a fact that is not the purpose of hunting. People go out there and shoot deer for the fun of it, and leave the dead bodies there to rot. It is purely for sport these days, most people don't hunt for food anymore. They buy it at the store.[/ quote] That wasn't the point of me saying the baby doesn't even stand a chance. It was to explain the unfairness of it. I don't hunt for just fun... if I kill something..I eat it... and just about everyone in the surrounding area does to. Something that has occurred to me (you and John liberty) . You both have used this animal cruelty thing as your argument. I also remember getting slammed for using evolution as an argument since I didn't believe in it. You all are whininh about how terrible it is we kill animals...but you continue to eat meat. I recall you saying that you eat meat and I know for a fact John does. You both are using something you are obviously completely against as your main argument...yet you support it by eating meat... ~DarkShadow I'm not preaching animal cruelty, I'm not some psycho PETA. I'm telling it to you straight up. You can't preach about how you shouldn't kill fetuses that aren't even alive yet, but be fine with killing things that are alive. It makes no sense. You used the pity argument by showing me pictures of dead fetuses, I gave you the pity argument right back. Both are graphic, and sad. But yet you are only disgusted by one, and that one happened to agree with your argument. You have said many times on this forum how evolution is not fact, and how Creationism is the only way. Then you go and use Evolution as the basis of your argument...that is entirely different. I said I'm ok with eating meat, although I also said that we have a choice there. But that wasn't the overall basis for my argument, unlike the argument you used on the environmental forum. You starting going off on population control of animals. I pointed out the flaws in your logic. I think your biggest issue here is that you think that somehow undeveloped fetuses are somehow more valuable than animal life...which is false. Also when John and I were discussing this via messenger he said something about you thinking humans are superior to animals. While this is true...we are obviously superior because we have built civilizations, that does not disregard the fact that they are life forms. I have worked closely with several different kinds of animals at work, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt those animals feel emotions. They feel fear, they feel love, they feel happiness and they feel pain. In fact, that was one of our experiments four years ago. After several months' research we came to the conclusion that animals can develop emotional bonds with people. An undeveloped fetus is not alive, but a cow is. Saying that killing an undeveloped fetus is wrong, but allowing the murder of cows is a logical fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 19, 2013 0:23:21 GMT
I'm not preaching animal cruelty, I'm not some psycho PETA. I'm telling it to you straight up. You can't preach about how you shouldn't kill fetuses that aren't even alive yet, but be fine with killing things that are alive. It makes no sense. You used the pity argument by showing me pictures of dead fetuses, I gave you the pity argument right back. Both are graphic, and sad. But yet you are only disgusted by one, and that one happened to agree with your argument. You have said many times on this forum how evolution is not fact, and how Creationism is the only way. Then you go and use Evolution as the basis of your argument...that is entirely different. I said I'm ok with eating meat, although I also said that we have a choice there. But that wasn't the overall basis for my argument, unlike the argument you used on the environmental forum. You starting going off on population control of animals. I pointed out the flaws in your logic. I think your biggest issue here is that you think that somehow undeveloped fetuses are somehow more valuable than animal life...which is false. Also when John and I were discussing this via messenger he said something about you thinking humans are superior to animals. While this is true...we are obviously superior because we have built civilizations, that does not disregard the fact that they are life forms. I have worked closely with several different kinds of animals at work, and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt those animals feel emotions. They feel fear, they feel love, they feel happiness and they feel pain. In fact, that was one of our experiments four years ago. After several months' research we came to the conclusion that animals can develop emotional bonds with people. An undeveloped fetus is not alive, but a cow is. Saying that killing an undeveloped fetus is wrong, but allowing the murder of cows is a logical fallacy. A cow is an insuperior lifeform to humans...as with any other animal. An animal will never invent anything, have an amazing speech, or do anything that is outstanding the way a human will... though many humans are pretty useless...they have the potential to be something important. I am not denying they can feel emotions ... but having emotions does not make a lifeforms any more superior. The problem that I have with abortion is that you are killing a bunch of cells that will eventually form into a human. You say its not even alive... I believe cells are considered to be alive...what would make cells less important than an animal? I understand that abortion will never be illegal... to think that is illogical... but my belief remains the same. The day all the animals plot a giant rebellion and overthrow the humans...I will take all of this back....but until then...my opinion is unchanged... I think that making abortion's not government funded and not covered by insurance would be a great start.
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Sept 19, 2013 12:50:48 GMT
A cow is an insuperior lifeform to humans...as with any other animal. An animal will never invent anything, have an amazing speech, or do anything that is outstanding the way a human will... though many humans are pretty useless...they have the potential to be something important. I am not denying they can feel emotions ... but having emotions does not make a lifeforms any more superior. The problem that I have with abortion is that you are killing a bunch of cells that will eventually form into a human. You say its not even alive... I believe cells are considered to be alive...what would make cells less important than an animal? I understand that abortion will never be illegal... to think that is illogical... but my belief remains the same. The day all the animals plot a giant rebellion and overthrow the humans...I will take all of this back....but until then...my opinion is unchanged... I think that making abortion's not government funded and not covered by insurance would be a great start. So animals have to be able to invent something to be allowed to live? What about a disabled person? A permanently disabled person. Someone that will never be able to invent something, or even walk. All they can do is stare at you and grunt. What then? They don't have the potential to be anything. They never will. Do we kill them? They, like animals, have emotions and a will to live. Disabled people could be called inconvenient to society, because they take up resources but do not contribute to society in any way. They will never give a speech, they will never invent someone, and they will never do anything but stare at you and grunt.
|
|
|
Post by DarkShadow on Sept 19, 2013 14:38:05 GMT
So animals have to be able to invent something to be allowed to live? What about a disabled person? A permanently disabled person. Someone that will never be able to invent something, or even walk. All they can do is stare at you and grunt. What then? They don't have the potential to be anything. They never will. Do we kill them? They, like animals, have emotions and a will to live. Disabled people could be called inconvenient to society, because they take up resources but do not contribute to society in any way. They will never give a speech, they will never invent someone, and they will never do anything but stare at you and grunt. You make an excellent point... but you didn't answer my question about what makes an animal more important than a bunch of cells? If you could give me several websites that r not biased towards pro choice or pro life that scientifically prove a baby is not alive at conception.
|
|
Gipper
Member
Posts: 59
Lean: Libertarian
Gender: Male
|
Post by Gipper on Sept 19, 2013 14:55:58 GMT
So animals have to be able to invent something to be allowed to live? What about a disabled person? A permanently disabled person. Someone that will never be able to invent something, or even walk. All they can do is stare at you and grunt. What then? They don't have the potential to be anything. They never will. Do we kill them? They, like animals, have emotions and a will to live. Disabled people could be called inconvenient to society, because they take up resources but do not contribute to society in any way. They will never give a speech, they will never invent someone, and they will never do anything but stare at you and grunt. You make an excellent point... but you didn't answer my question about what makes an animal more important than a bunch of cells? If you could give me several websites that r not biased towards pro choice or pro life that scientifically prove a baby is not alive at conception. You will never find an unbiased site...so I did the best I could. I picked sites with both arguments, but gave the logical pro-choice argument. "Biologist Scott Gilbert, an expert in human development, tells us that there are at least four distinct moments that can be thought of as the beginning of human life. Each can be said to be biologically accurate. Proponents of the neurological view adhere to brainwave criteria; life begins when a distinct EEG pattern can be detected, about 24 to 27 weeks. (Some Protestant churches affirm this.) Interestingly, life is also thought to end when the EEG pattern is no longer present." www.thesurvivaldoctor.com/2013/02/07/when-does-life-begin-medical-experts-debate-abortion-issue/"Although the fetus can move at week 14, the movements are little more than jerky reflexes. They are not driven by higher cortical functioning. Therefore, another school of thought is that life begins at week 20, when the thalamus is completely formed. The thalamus is the relay center of the brain, and helps to connect the cerebral cortex to the spinal cord and peripheral nerves." brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/
|
|
|
Post by prodebater on Sept 21, 2013 3:59:35 GMT
So animals have to be able to invent something to be allowed to live? What about a disabled person? A permanently disabled person. Someone that will never be able to invent something, or even walk. All they can do is stare at you and grunt. What then? They don't have the potential to be anything. They never will. Do we kill them? They, like animals, have emotions and a will to live. Disabled people could be called inconvenient to society, because they take up resources but do not contribute to society in any way. They will never give a speech, they will never invent someone, and they will never do anything but stare at you and grunt. You make an excellent point... but you didn't answer my question about what makes an animal more important than a bunch of cells? If you could give me several websites that r not biased towards pro choice or pro life that scientifically prove a baby is not alive at conception. After reading several of your post, I came to the conclusion that you are an ignorant bastard who refuses to see reason of any type. I myself being one of these "evil " doctors who performs the procedure can tell you that an unborn baby is not yet alive. Every woman has the right to an abortion. You must be incredibly sensitive to be moved by the video you showed us. Its simply a dead piece of meat sliding out of a woman. Its quite useless really. After a while it can become quite comical tossing this piece of meat into a bucket. You keep saying to many abortions are done each year. I on the other hand don't think there is nearly enough. Despite how the other two blockheads arguing with you are generally wrong, I haven to give them some credit this time (applause) . An animal without a doubt is superior to a fetus before the second trimester. Honestly.. id take an animal over the bag of organs any day. At least the animal actually holds some worth. Maybe one day you wont be blinded by your religion in every aspect if your life. Good day to ya chap! ProDebater P.S. F**k you.
|
|
|
Post by John Liberty on Sept 21, 2013 12:15:30 GMT
You make an excellent point... but you didn't answer my question about what makes an animal more important than a bunch of cells? If you could give me several websites that r not biased towards pro choice or pro life that scientifically prove a baby is not alive at conception. After reading several of your post, I came to the conclusion that you are an ignorant bastard who refuses to see reason of any type. I myself being one of these "evil " doctors who performs the procedure can tell you that an unborn baby is not yet alive. Every woman has the right to an abortion. You must be incredibly sensitive to be moved by the video you showed us. Its simply a dead piece of meat sliding out of a woman. Its quite useless really. After a while it can become quite comical tossing this piece of meat into a bucket. You keep saying to many abortions are done each year. I on the other hand don't think there is nearly enough. Despite how the other two blockheads arguing with you are generally wrong, I haven to give them some credit this time (applause) . An animal without a doubt is superior to a fetus before the second trimester. Honestly.. id take an animal over the bag of organs any day. At least the animal actually holds some worth. Maybe one day you wont be blinded by your religion in every aspect if your life. Good day to ya chap! ProDebater P.S. F**k you. MODERATORS WARNING: Keep it civil!
|
|
fedup
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Lean: Libertarian
|
Post by fedup on Dec 5, 2013 22:53:21 GMT
Shock videos shouldn't be used for opinion control. I feel like that particular abortion was intentionally made to be extra graphic.
|
|