Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    x
    I completely agree with all of these definitions, but not with many of your extrapolations from them, for example: how does "man, woman and child" include a 'pre-born'?

    In addition, your entire argument is built upon the premise that a foetus, an embryo and a zygote are all human beings (I use this as a synonym for 'person'). This is what you need to justify and it's what I disputed in my original post - simply saying "the zygote is alive and has life" isn't justification: that's the claim that you need to justify.

    no person can determine another person's quality or what lack there may be. this is why I am against the word in use. it can be applied to all humans as being of ill quality simply because you do not agree with them. e.i. an athiest may not have quality in life is not met, since he does not recognize God. OR a religious person may be not quality of life because he/she does not recognize absence of a god and therefore is trapped. OR a person living in povery does not have the same quality of life as a rich person. for what ever reason, these people should die.
    the above concept of 'quality' is unjust and illogical. it can not be applied as such.
    I'm having difficulty understanding your point with the above paragraph (are you a native English speaker?).
    You should look up the definition of the word "quality" and apply it to the context of the definition that you cited: it has nothing to do with value or perceived value - it refers to the
    countable type of quality.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    the act of helping your body defeat an illness (cancer) is natural.the substance of chemotherapy
    Can you give me an example of any animal (including humans) trying to 'defeat' cancer in the wild?

    I don't know a single natural substance that we use in chemotherapy. Many of them are derived from naturally occurring chemicals, yes, but they are all either synthetic or semisynthetic.

    and radiotherapy is a natural occurant aswell, though unstable and dangerious.
    Radiation, for the most part, is completely harmless: the exceptions are the stuff at the high-energy end of the spectrum.

    What about the IVs, the synthetic drugs, and the linear particle accelerators that we need to treat cancer? Are they natural, too?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cartman)
    Well if a foetus has an heartbeat then I would say that is a human being. You seem to think because the foetus is dependant upon the mother then that means it's not a human being? That's like saying people in care homes are not people because they're can't look after themselves. Or people on life support are not human because they can't support themselves. It's absurd logic.

    Since you've asked me, why don't you give me your definition of human life?
    People who are brain dead can still have a beating heart yet we still turn their life machines off?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Yeah, I don't think pro-lifers ever actually consider what it might be like to have an abortion. People who act like I'm a selfish cow who doesn't use contraception, when they don't even know my circumstances...

    To think it's a lightly taken decision is also a load of rubbish. EVERY girl who's ever had a preg scare knows quite how horrid it is. They were two of the worst days of my life, but I'd do it again if I had to. Abortions happen whether they are "allowed" or not. It is the responsibility of a decent government to make sure all women can access them safely and without judgement should they need to.
    Exactly, how many women died as a result of having no choice but to use backstreet abortionists prior to it being legalised? In fact isn't there a case in the media at the moment involving refusal to treat and the subsequent death of the mother?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Idle)
    I don't as such disagree with your point but your analogy is poor. The aim of buying a car is to drive, not get hit by another car (which you have no control over), the sole biological reason for sex is the creation of children (which you do).
    People have sex for other reasons beside procreation though. I'm just saying that consent to one thing doesn't equal consent to a million other possibilities that may or may not spring from it. I appreciate that there may have been better analogies to use.

    (Original post by jcarz)
    I made four posts in a row, only one of which contained pictures.

    Ironic that you stoop to "infantile" belittling.

    Just as you lack the decency to respect the rights of human beings in the womb, it is clearly your trait to lack decency in responding to opposing arguments as well.
    Yeah, they were equally pathetic.

    Cute pun.

    You didn't make an argument, that's my point :L

    (Original post by lenny_)
    but by driving a car you are accepting the possibility that you could be in an accident, same as by having sex, even with all possible contraception, there is still the risk of pregnancy and so by having sex you are taking that risk and so should make sure you are in a situation where you can have a child before you do it. Its just selfish to think 'oh no, it will never happen to me' or 'we used contraception so it's not our problem' cos it bloody well is your problem and you should accept the consequences!
    The person I was replying to was saying that by driving the car, you are consenting. Consenting =/= awareness of risk. By getting in the car, you are not granting permission for other motorists to rear-end you. You're just granting permission to be in the car.

    I think you're the selfish one, to be honest. Mistakes happen. I expect you're the sort of person who'd deny medical treatment to a person falling out of a tree/injuring themselves skiing as they clearly accepted the risk and so should deal with the consequences, right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    Jews were considered sub-humans by the Nazis and were killed. Babies are butchered in the uterus of thousands every day because they are just considered cells when they will grow up to be contributing people of society with feelings and dreams and ambitions.

    Abortion is purely selfish. I do not buy any argument that the child will not have a good life. How can anyone even begin to presuppose whether a life will be good or not. We aren't psychics.

    Justin Bieber's mother wanted to abort him, when he was young, but her Christianity led her to change her mind and keep the baby. Listen, I don't like his music, but you just cannot say that anybody is just not going to have a good life as an excuse to abort them.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ti...w-can-it-sink/

    PS: Tell the 30000 plus who liked that video how killing 6 million Jews is not in many ways linked to the sinister destructive massacres that are abortions.

    http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/rebekah8363/
    The Nazis were WRONG about the Jews being subhuman. Jews are human. However, I am justified in saying that embryos are not humans. So there's a difference between killing a live human, and killing something that can be allowed to grow into a live human.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    Answer this question:

    If your mother was going to have an abortion, and it was you that she was thinking of aborting, would you stand by your arguments?
    Out of emotional self interest I wouldn't stand by it. But it's irrelevant, the embryo doesn't have a say in the morality of the decision, it is the female's body and her right to make the decision.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I disagree with it in most cases. But I think that if it is discovered that the potential child will most likely be born with an incurable illness/ deformity that will have a large impact on their lifestyle and what they're able to do, I would strongly consider having it aborted. I think too often we look at things based on the "quantity" of life, whether in regards to embryos or to people on life support, etc. We're often quite ignorant of how important the quality of this life should be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xiomara)
    The person I was replying to was saying that by driving the car, you are consenting. Consenting =/= awareness of risk. By getting in the car, you are not granting permission for other motorists to rear-end you. You're just granting permission to be in the car.

    I think you're the selfish one, to be honest. Mistakes happen. I expect you're the sort of person who'd deny medical treatment to a person falling out of a tree/injuring themselves skiing as they clearly accepted the risk and so should deal with the consequences, right?
    by getting in the car you are understanding that there is a very small chance that there could be an accident and considering that i'm the one trying to help save the lives of unborn children rather than just killing them because its inconvenient to the parents i wouldn't consider myself selfish. and no, i wouldn't deny someone who falls out of a tree treatment but my point is that you wouldn't blame the tree if you fell, similarly you shouldn't blame the contraception. you choose to climb the tree even though you realise that you might fall out. There is a difference between giving someone a paracetamol and killing a baby.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with abortion.. I don't think it's something wrong. It is better to have an abortion than give birth to a baby you cannot bring up. Becoming parents isn't easy, but above all it isn't a game, so if you aren't ready you can't have a shot at being parent. I think that when someone makes sex carelessly and superficially without taking in consideration the risks, is obviously unable to take care of an undefended baby and bring him up.
    It's also true that abortion can be considered negatively from a religious and moral point of view, but in some cases it's inevitable.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    One of the difficulties here is deciding what test you apply for a 'person'. A good deal of the anti-abortion argument appears to assume that 'potential person' is the same as 'person', but I don't think this is obvious.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lenny_)
    by getting in the car you are understanding that there is a very small chance that there could be an accident and considering that i'm the one trying to help save the lives of unborn children rather than just killing them because its inconvenient to the parents i wouldn't consider myself selfish. and no, i wouldn't deny someone who falls out of a tree treatment but my point is that you wouldn't blame the tree if you fell, similarly you shouldn't blame the contraception. you choose to climb the tree even though you realise that you might fall out. There is a difference between giving someone a paracetamol and killing a baby.
    But you're not saying that it's OK.

    If you actually cared about unborn kids (and as to why you're not talking about the ones that are already on this planet and suffering, because there are plenty of them) you'd be working to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to change the financial and social systems we have in this country that keeps people in positions that aren't good to raise children in. You'd probably be working towards alleviating poverty, seeing as decades of demographic data show that cutting poverty in half would result in a 30% decrease in abortion rates (US DATA) (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf)
    How much of that do you actually do, out of interest?

    You're not killing a baby, you're removing some cells. Like clipping your toenails or getting a haircut
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    The Nazis were WRONG about the Jews being subhuman. Jews are human. However, I am justified in saying that embryos are not humans. So there's a difference between killing a live human, and killing something that can be allowed to grow into a live human.
    It has separate DNA from conception. From that moment it is a separate individual with rights.

    Most scientists are justified in saying that life begins at conception, despite your views.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html


    (Original post by Hypocrism)
    Out of emotional self interest I wouldn't stand by it. But it's irrelevant, the embryo doesn't have a say in the morality of the decision, it is the female's body and her right to make the decision.
    Nimbyism really - arguing for something except when it directly affects you.

    Nice.

    Obviously the embryo doesn't have a say - it can't communicate. This means we have a duty to stick up for the vulnerable and represent what would be their opinions on the matter if they were born but the mother almost considered killing the child.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkpIHvMo8zI


    (Original post by giuseppe94)
    Well so what? They're still potential babies.
    Yes. Lots of sperm cells die during the fertilisation process as well. Similarly, eggs also decompose. These are natural and neither contain the genetic makeup of a separate human being to the mother or father. That is the critical difference.


    (Original post by Xiomara)
    People have sex for other reasons beside procreation though. I'm just saying that consent to one thing doesn't equal consent to a million other possibilities that may or may not spring from it. I appreciate that there may have been better analogies to use.



    Yeah, they were equally pathetic.

    Cute pun.

    You didn't make an argument, that's my point :L



    The person I was replying to was saying that by driving the car, you are consenting. Consenting =/= awareness of risk. By getting in the car, you are not granting permission for other motorists to rear-end you. You're just granting permission to be in the car.

    I think you're the selfish one, to be honest. Mistakes happen. I expect you're the sort of person who'd deny medical treatment to a person falling out of a tree/injuring themselves skiing as they clearly accepted the risk and so should deal with the consequences, right?
    Thanks. Perhaps you think baby butchery is also cute.

    http://www.abort67.co.uk/content/dare-see-truth
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    My personal belief is that how can any unborn baby be better off dead if he or she could go to perhaps a loving family whos dream is to adopt a child and love and care for them as their own, whove tried years and years of IVF treatment etc whose only ever wish is to have a child...ofcourse everyone is entitled to their opinion but to kill a unborn baby because of the circumstances the women is in i cannot understand as they could give the baby to be adopted to people who will take on the mother and father role and give them a chance in life that they deserve.
    Against abortion but do not criticise those who choose it, i just know I could not ever abort a baby no matter what the circumstances are
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kate_louise21)
    My personal belief is that how can any unborn baby be better off dead if he or she could go to perhaps a loving family whos dream is to adopt a child and love and care for them as their own, whove tried years and years of IVF treatment etc whose only ever wish is to have a child...ofcourse everyone is entitled to their opinion but to kill a unborn baby because of the circumstances the women is in i cannot understand as they could give the baby to be adopted to people who will take on the mother and father role and give them a chance in life that they deserve.
    Against abortion but do not criticise those who choose it, i just know I could not ever abort a baby no matter what the circumstances are
    If there are so many loving families who dream of adopting children, why are there so many children still in care?
    The adoption system is not as rosy as films like Juno make it out to be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xiomara)
    You're not killing a baby, you're removing some cells. Like clipping your toenails or getting a haircut
    it really isn't the same. the difference is that your toenails (i hope) don't have the potential be become human, at no point in their lives would they be able to survive away from your toe to have the opportunity of a full life unlike a foetus.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    It has separate DNA from conception. From that moment it is a separate individual with rights.

    Most scientists are justified in saying that life begins at conception, despite your views.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/ar...yoquotes2.html
    This link offers nothing in the way of where human life begins, but human development. I don't consider a hunk of metal a "car" and in the same way I don't consider a zygote a human.

    Nimbyism really - arguing for something except when it directly affects you.
    As I said, the conceptus would argue that in self-interest, not out of logic. Morally I don't consider the conceptus' opinion as relevant.

    Yes. Lots of sperm cells die during the fertilisation process as well. Similarly, eggs also decompose. These are natural and neither contain the genetic makeup of a separate human being to the mother or father. That is the critical difference.
    Untrue, every germ cell contains different genetic material to the parent. And that is not the point, they have the 'potential' to be humans if you do the 'morally right' thing :rolleyes:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcarz)
    Thanks. Perhaps you think baby butchery is also cute.

    http://www.abort67.co.uk/content/dare-see-truth
    Highly emotive arguments with no logical substance behind them are weak. We all feel harsh emotions when we see embryos being aborted, but we aren't animals that rely on emotions any more. Our best tool for determining morality is logic and not emotion. Ideally we are all both pro-life and pro-choice, however this cushy view of the world simply does not work.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Donald Duck)
    We have killed people since the beginning of our time, but haven't been doing operations, nor been able to fight cancer, nor live past the age of ~40 for most of the time humans lived on earth.
    the act of helping your body defeat an illness (cancer) is natural.
    though the methods have changed, we humans, have always tried some method in helping our bodies fight deseases.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
    I completely agree with all of these definitions, but not with many of your extrapolations from them, for example: how does "man, woman and child" include a 'pre-born'?
    A pre-born is a child. the child (or children in some cases) of the mother and father. All pre-borns, regardless of developed state/stage fits this term both in the manner we use it in society and manner of description for offspring.

    In addition, your entire argument is built upon the premise that a foetus, an embryo and a zygote are all human beings (I use this as a synonym for 'person'). This is what you need to justify and it's what I disputed in my original post - simply saying "the zygote is alive and has life" isn't justification: that's the claim that you need to justify.
    excuse me, I did not know I needed to cite nor explain biology. did not know this portion was in question either.
    characteristics of life is described in different ways at times, so here are just a few links I found you could visit rather I type it up myself.
    http://infohost.nmt.edu/~klathrop/7c...cs_of_life.htm
    http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/pdf/origin06.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_t...istics_of_life

    the pre-born follow the above. ergo - living.

    as for the premise of all pre-born humans are human beings and therefore a person.
    humans can only reproduce other humans. not a single human nor animal may reproduce an offspring that is a different 100% completely new species (that then turns around and changes into what ever species the parents are - in this case human) or a non-living thing. if there is serious doubt, you can tell by DNA. that is all we need in order to be human. chromosone count may help in determining "being" rather a part of or not a "being".


    I'm having difficulty understanding your point with the above paragraph.
    You should look up the definition of the word "quality" and apply it to the context of the definition that you cited: it has nothing to do with value or perceived value - it refers to the
    countable type of quality.
    (Original post by def of quality I found)
    1.The standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something: "quality of life".
    2.General excellence of standard or level
    there are different meanings to the word of quality, I did not see the word in use of the definition of 'personhood' as refering to quantity or something strickly countable.

    there are many ways to try and determine "quality of life". economics is one way. however one might try, my point is that you can not determine another person's death based on your concept of "quality".

    Can you give me an example of any animal (including humans) trying to 'defeat' cancer in the wild?
    if you noticed, I said illness (which includes cancer). humans have a rich history of curing illnesses at any attempt by any means (this includes the non-scientific sort as well).
    for example: use of leaches,

    I don't know a single natural substance that we use in chemotherapy. Many of them are derived from naturally occurring chemicals, yes, but they are all either synthetic or semisynthetic.

    Radiation, for the most part, is completely harmless: the exceptions are the stuff at the high-energy end of the spectrum.

    What about the IVs, the synthetic drugs, and the linear particle accelerators that we need to treat cancer? Are they natural, too?
    my main concern was the above statement.

    if radiation therepy was harmless, then there would not be reports of patients developing cancer from it, nor dieing from related issues. that's another topic, however.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    though the methods have changed, we humans, have always tried some method in helping our bodies fight deseases.
    And we have beaten, murdered and fought since we existed. During most of which we kept slaves. Perfectly natural.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.