Abortion

[hashslinger]

Why does a fertilized cell have rights?

Now that obama is in office he is making abortion up till the last second before the baby is born. The baby is functional. A mother can feel her baby kicking inside of her.

It is life. If you didnt abort it would live meaning it has rights.

I dont see why every woman who dosent want a child puts it up for adoption.

Many women who abort their babys feel horribly guilty afterwards and the guilt sometimes ruins their lives.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I would most definitely stay with the violinist. That would be cruel and wrong to leave him, and you really can't compare it since the woman can still walk around with the baby inside of her. Once it is born if she doesn't want to keep it because "the scars remain" meaning she still has the memories of the rape. Then she can put it up for adoption.

You can stay with the violinist if you wish, but the problem raised in the example is whether or not you are morally required to stay with him.

In both cases, somebody is tied to another against their will to keep them alive. That's as far as the analogy needs to extend.

As soon as the cells divide it has rights because that is where I define life begins. Tell me when you define where life begins if it doesn't begin at the first sign of life? It's like saying a tropical storm with all the right circumstances shouldn't be treated as a hurricane on the off chance it doesn't become a hurricane. That is stupid. You would want to warn all the people possible that this storm is most likely going to become a cat 5 hurricane. You wouldn't say oh well once it has become a hurricane and destroyed a few cities then we will call it a hurricane, but until then we will just say it has no potential and is a tropical storm.

Do you really think that because something is alive, it has rights?

The hurricane example doesn't hold - a hurricane that has not destroyed anything is still physically a hurricane.

You understand what I am saying? If not I can try and explain it better cause that explanation pretty much sucked.

When would you describe life beginning then if you don't say it is at the first signs of life? When it comes out of the womb and breathes it's first breath? Well that could be at many different times so that makes it illogical. Do you explain it as when it starts looking like a human? That too isn't very logical on the fact that babies can be born deformed and have abnormalities. Would you have us kill the retarded babies, or the ones that are deformed by birth?

I'm not pushing any one view, I'm just questioning everybody else's.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Now that obama is in office he is making abortion up till the last second before the baby is born. The baby is functional. A mother can feel her baby kicking inside of her.

The ability to kick grants rights?

It is life. If you didnt abort it would live meaning it has rights.

Why does being alive imply a right to stay alive?

I dont see why every woman who dosent want a child puts it up for adoption.

Probably because they don't want to endure the pregnancy.

Many women who abort their babys feel horribly guilty afterwards and the guilt sometimes ruins their lives.

Cool. That's really not relevant.

 

[hashslinger]

The ability to kick grants rights?

Yes It is living. Just because it cant talk dosent mean it dosent have rights. Cant you see this is murder?

Why does being alive imply a right to stay alive?

Again... This is called murder...

Probably because they don't want to endure the pregnancy.

This is a lame reason. It is better than kiling your child.

Cool. That's really not relevant.

Why not?

 

[p0oned y0u1]

A hurricane is defined by it's force. Not by the act of destroying something. It is defined by reaching over 72 mph wind speeds. Anyways.

You keep bringing it back to what gives them being alive rights. Well what gives you rights? Are you saying that just because something is alive doesn't give it rights? So I could go and kill you and that would be fine because rights aren't given to something when it is living? I'm just trying to understand here.

 

[p0oned y0u1]

Oh yea, and why is it considered double murder (excuse the term) when you kill a pregnant lady, but she has the right to kill the baby without consequences?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Yes It is living. Just because it cant talk dosent mean it dosent have rights. Cant you see this is murder?

So because it is living, it has rights?

Again... This is called murder...

Is killing a worm murder?

This is a lame reason. It is better than kiling your child.

Just answering the question, chief.

Why not?

If a thief steals $1,000, you might consider that to be an immoral act - but would it be immoral just because the thief feels guilty?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Oh yea, and why is it considered double murder (excuse the term) when you kill a pregnant lady, but she has the right to kill the baby without consequences?

Does the fact that something is the law mean that it is moral/immoral?

 

[p0oned y0u1]

You mind if I talk to you on msn I don't feel like spamming up this post with my thoughts. I'm not here for post count. Just for good debates. =)

But to answer your question no the fact that something law does not make it moral/immoral.

 

[Shredderbeam]

A hurricane is defined by it's force. Not by the act of destroying something. It is defined by reaching over 72 mph wind speeds. Anyways.

Right, so there is no difference between a hurricane at sea and a hurricane over land, so the analogy does not fit.

You keep bringing it back to what gives them being alive rights. Well what gives you rights? Are you saying that just because something is alive doesn't give it rights? So I could go and kill you and that would be fine because rights aren't given to something when it is living? I'm just trying to understand here.

You haven't answered my question.

You mind if I talk to you on msn I don't feel like spamming up this post with my thoughts. I'm not here for post count. Just for good debates. =)

Ok, I'm on right now.

But to answer your question no the fact that something law does not make it moral/immoral.

Then the "double murder" issue is not relevant.

 

[hashslinger]

So because it is living, it has rights?

Yes... If you are human and you kill another human being it is called murder.

Is killing a worm murder?

No murder would be killing the same species as you. If I shot a deer It would not be murder, it would be part of the food chain. If I shot my highschool teacher it would be murder.

If a thief steals $1,000, you might consider that to be an immoral act - but would it be immoral just because the thief feels guilty?

Did I say it was immoral because they felt guilty? Why do you think the woman feels horribly guilty??

If you feel guilt 99% of the time you are doing something wrong.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Yes... If you are human and you kill another human being it is called murder.

Legally, yes, but are we discussing the law or are we discussing morality?

No murder would be killing the same species as you. If I shot a deer It would not be murder, it would be part of the food chain. If I shot my highschool teacher it would be murder.

Well if I kill a deer, and then I kill a man, and killing the deer is not morally reprehensible, then it is not the fact that the man is alive that grants him rights. There must be some qualitative difference between the man and the deer.

Did I say it was immoral because they felt guilty? Why do you think the woman feels horribly guilty??

Probably because of biology.

 

[hashslinger]

Legally, yes, but are we discussing the law or are we discussing morality?

Does it matter? Murder is murder. It is wrong to murder someone. Why would you? You are taking someone elses life. Every live has value.

Well if I kill a deer, and then I kill a man, and killing the deer is not morally reprehensible, then it is not the fact that the man is alive that grants him rights. There must be some qualitative difference between the man and the deer.

Species. If a a lion will kill a deer but al lion will not kill another lion. Because we are the only "intelligent" species, we can not hear what other species have to say. Killing something within your species is murder.

Probably because of biology.

You are avoiding the truth.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Does it matter? Murder is murder. It is wrong to murder someone. Why would you? You are taking someone elses life. Every live has value.

Does a bacteria's life have value?

Species. If a a lion will kill a deer but al lion will not kill another lion. Because we are the only "intelligent" species, we can not hear what other species have to say. Killing something within your species is murder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hGhaE0YgU

About 1 minute in, witness an adult male lion killing another lion's cubs.

Why is killing a being that is similar to you murder? Say that there was another sentient race on Earth. They were intelligent, could feel pain, could converse easily with us, could trade, and so on. Would you think that killing one of them is not murder?

 

[hashslinger]

Does a bacteria's life have value?

No.. why would it? It is not human.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hGhaE0YgU

About 1 minute in, witness an adult male lion killing another lion's cubs.

Why is killing a being that is similar to you murder? Say that there was another sentient race on Earth. They were intelligent, could feel pain, could converse easily with us, could trade, and so on. Would you think that killing one of them is not murder?

Because we are the one defining race as smart. We are our own species. If there were another species that had our intelligence, Yes, it would be considered murder.

The lion killed the cubs because they were not his. He took over the females and killed their cubs so he could start fresh. This is ofcourse a dumb beast. We are intelligent human beings and live in a society where everyone should be treated equally.

 

[Isis]

This is ofcourse a dumb beast.

Just because a species does not have laws or rules set, doesn't mean they should be considered 'dumb'.

It´s human nature , a new male lion takes over the group of females and kills all the cubs, so he can maid with their mother, and get cubs which would have his genes. No male lion would take over in a family, with cubs that were not his. The females allow them to do it, because they want to have cubs with the strongest male. Reason being that, such cubs, have a better chance to grow up to be adults.

Stupid? I think not.

 

[hashslinger]

Just because a species does not have laws or rules set, doesn't mean they should be considered 'dumb'.

It´s human nature , a new male lion takes over the group of females and kills all the cubs, so he can maid with their mothers at once and get cubs which would have his genes. No male lion would take over, with which the cubs are not his. The females let him do it, because they want to have cubs with the strongest male. Reason being that, such cubs, have a better chance to grow up to be adults.

Stupid? I think not.

You know what i meen.

When I see lions build a civilization, I will change my mind.

 

[Isis]

You know what i meen.

When I see lions build a civilization, I will change my mind.

That's fine and all, But when you are comparing two species, Humans to Lions for example, you cannot call lions 'dumb'. We are just more advanced.

 

[Shredderbeam]

No.. why would it? It is not human.

Then it is not simply "life" that grants rights. What does?

Because we are the one defining race as smart. We are our own species. If there were another species that had our intelligence, Yes, it would be considered murder.

Then murder is not simply "killing a member of your own species", as you were arguing. What is murder, then?

 

[The Riddler_]

You may quarrel over frivolities if you so please, but whatever the case, my justification will be:

Baby is INSIDE mother's body
Mother controls her body
Mother can do as she pleases with her body
Mother has the right to abort the baby.

So if I drop a $50 dollar bill in her stomach while operating, the lady can just go burn herself alive with my money in her?

Then it is not simply "life" that grants rights. What does?



Then murder is not simply "killing a member of your own species", as you were arguing. What is murder, then?

Shredder, I've noticed that you rarely question Finn, any reason other than he doesn't care what we say "It's her body, decision".