Abortion: Should it be allowed? 9 - Page 13

quote Sah_Kuh_Suckers

This is exactly my point. Nobody agrees exactly when life begins, so why take the chance?

Because doing what you say endangers liberty and dignity of women everywhere. I'm not willing to give up the two most essential human values for a chance.

quote 771l9

But you believe that a fetus is not alive because is hasn't experienced life, but to experience life, you have to be alive. In that sense no one is alive, but nothing more that cells and electrical sparks that create illusions of thought.

No, you see we're sentient. We're functioning on our own and are aware of our own existence. a fetus is no more aware than a rock. A fly has more sentience than a fetus. We're alive because we experience life, go figure. As i've said a hundred times before, a fetus does not.

quote 771l9

So how is abortion not murder?

Because a fetus is not alive.

quote Byzantine

No, you see we're sentient. We're functioning on our own and are aware of our own existence. a fetus is no more aware than a rock. A fly has more sentience than a fetus. We're alive because we experience life, go figure. As i've said a hundred times before, a fetus does not.

So then why is murder, if painless, wrong? By murdering someone I have denied them life, but I did not take away the life they have already lived. If potential life is valueless as you say, then I have done nothing wrong. But what makes the potential life suddenly have value once someone has experienced life? We can't make exceptions to murder.

Using your logic.

"of course, this is just "a chance" right?
Tell me, which is the lesser of two evils:

Killing
or
Violation of woman's rights"

Hindu's believe Cows are reincarnated dead relatives. And plenty of religions believe that people are reincarnated into animals. So shouldn't we all now worship the animals as their is a chance they are our relatives? This is especially true since science has determined that life doesn't begin until 6 months and so you must be arguing on a spiritual basis.

What is worse:

Eating our dead relatives souls
Or
Being vegetarians?

No you are arguing that the fetus is alive at the time. Which is scientifically not true. So you are arguing it spiritually is a life. I am arguing spiritually what 837 million people believe. There is no difference. You can't just ignore it because it isn't your religion whilst you enforce beliefs dictated by your religion.

I don't operate by fearing every step I take on a chance.

But when you say stuff like this, there's a discontinuity when you are try to pull a "What-if kind of argument."
Of course that maybe true, I can't truly say I understand my position until I doubt it some.

And if they're reincarnated, they'll be reincarnate again after I finish the two buns that they're wedged between, right? No harm done.

quote robotbear

Never harm others is not a human value!!! That is a moral value that only some hold. There is a whole philosophical idea of doing what you want no matter the consequences for others. Never harm others is IN NO WAY a human value!!! otherwise there would be no wars or fights or conflicts at all.

women's rights isn't necessarily a human value as well, or else there would be no wife-beaters.

quote 771l9

So then why is murder, if painless, wrong?

Because they're alive. They're aware of their own existence, they're sentient. How many times do i have to say this? They know they're alive, they experience thought and sensation, they can perceive and understand that they are actually breathing.

They're actually alive.

quote 771l9

But what makes the potential life suddenly have value once someone has experienced life? We can't make exceptions to murder.

You have to experience life to be alive, that's why it's called life. you can't murder what's not living, pretty simple concept.

Please, try a different argument because this one is going to get nowhere.

quote Sah_Kuh_Suckers

And in that same stroke, you give up the MOST essential human value of all.

never harm others.

of course, this is just "a chance" right?

Try a different argument. this one is going to go nowhere because we have different and irrevocable definitions as to what constitutes life.
Tell me, which is the lesser of two evils:

Killing
or
Violation of woman's rights

a "Chance" goes both ways, byzantine, and especially when one weighs the lives of millions and millions of "possible lives"

You can't harm that which isn't alive. Period. You can't kill that which doesn't live, therefore all you're doing is infringing upon another's rights. That is the true evil.

I'm not going to give up my liberties, or anyone else's for no reason. Medically speaking, the child is not aware until six months, therefore i do not consider it alive, just like many others. Again, you can't murder what isn't alive. You're arguing about when life begins, and i'm telling you i don't think it begins until the entity in question is aware that it's alive.

quote Sah_Kuh_Suckers

women's rights isn't necessarily a human value as well, or else there would be no wife-beaters.

Human dignity is a right. The thing with rights is that we as human beings determine what they are. I've determined that human dignity and liberty are two irrevocable rights. that's not going to change.

quote Byzantine

You can't harm that which isn't alive. Period. You can't kill that which doesn't live, therefore all you're doing is infringing upon another's rights. That is the true evil.

I'm not going to give up my liberties, or anyone else's for no reason. Medically speaking, the child is not aware until six months, therefore i do not consider it alive, just like many others. Again, you can't murder what isn't alive. You're arguing about when life begins, and i'm telling you i don't think it begins until the entity in question is aware that it's alive.

Am I not infringing upon an unborn's right's to live? It will be aware, and I hold it as that.
This entire thing is a timing issue. If I could pull the aborted babies from the future, and put them in court for their right to live, then they would fight for it.

Time is a fluid, and immaterial. You want to argue that the timing of how it is doesn't give them rights, then fine.
But you can't wish away the potential that is lost.
In most cases of abortion, women terminate the baby not for medical issues, not they were raped, but simply because they don't want it. That's not a right, that's a whim.

You have to understand that most rapes finish with no semen. (raping is a domination issue, not a sexual one) Pregenacies from rape are very rare.