Honestly if you don't know about a subject, don't debate about it. You end up out of your depth and it kinda devalues any original point you might have had.
(Original post by orcprocess)
What is the moral difference between having to rely on a body compared to having to rely on a person?
As for the idea of pain it would seem we would have to include vast swathes of animals as people.
I don't really know enough about it. A cursory glance at Wikipedia didn't help either...
Also your argument "So the killing of an infant isn't murder. They aren't 'fully formed'." is a very good example of the logical fallacy referred to as "reductio ad absurdum". What you have done is to take what has been said and reduced it to something too basic, something that wasn't intended. You cherry-picked the words "fully-formed" and used a different interpretation of them as a way of proving a point when in fact all you did was weaken any point you may have been attempting to get across)
Until you understand the difference between sapience and sentience, and the times at which either word can be applied, then you really cannot hold a steady debate on a topic such as this (if you're using the sapience and sentience based arguments that is).
(Original post by When you see it...)
I don't get how a baby is more sapient than a foetus?
Wikipedia sums up sapience fairly well: "Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties."
A baby will over time start to make knowledge-based judgement. A foetus cannot.
Last edited by Skeletorfw; 31-12-2011 at 21:15.
I'm pro-life, but that doesn't mean that I think a mother should carry on with a pregnancy if her life will be in danger if she doesn't get an abortion, because, as I say, I'm pro-life, which means I'm pro ALL life, not just the baby's life. In a situation where the mother's life would be at risk, then obviously it has to be either one life or the other that must end. Either the mother carries the baby and she dies, or she aborts the baby and it dies. Both are tragic, and I would never judge a woman for aborting her baby in this situation.
If the woman continues with the pregnancy though, I think it's probably about the most selfless thing she could do, but I'm not sure I could do it myself considering I have my mother children to think about who would be motherless if I did that.
Incidentally I read a story about that sort of thing a few days ago which made me cry :
So yeh, I'm pro-life, BUT I'm not going to join the society. "Why?" I hear you holler. Because, over the past 7 years, I've been involved in enough TSR abortion debates to last me a life-time. None of them get very far, none of the pro-lifers manage to convince the pro-choicers that the foetus is of any importance, and none of the pro-choicers manage to convince the pro-lifers that abortion is anything other than the murder of a baby. What generally tends to happen is a lot of bickering and arguing, which escalates into name calling and neg repping and fallings out, which is just ridiculous. It's predictable yet avoidable.
So, I wish you well OP with your society, but that's as far as it goes lol.
Last edited by PinkMobilePhone; 01-01-2012 at 16:05.