The Political Discussion Thread

[lordofseas]

except that it's not her own body that she's harming...she's harming an innocent life.....natural law tells us that our existence begins when sperm meets egg....doesn't matter what stage of development you kill a human being at....murder is murder.....and medical ethics decree that any medical personnel must do everything in their power to care for BOTH mother AND child.....and that it's better that both die if everything medically possible has been done to save both lives rather than take upon ourselves the power to decide who lives and who dies

Explain how it is better that doctors allow two lives to die, rather than just one.

[The Mighty 6 platoon]

Explain how it is better that doctors allow two lives to die, rather than just one.

Insane troll logic?

[SoulReaver]

Explain how it is better that doctors allow two lives to die, rather than just one.

it's more Prolife

[lordofseas]

Insane troll logic?

No, actually, I'm quite interested. If you are truly "pro-life" (more on that ridiculous term in a second), then you would want to save as many lives as possible.

it's more Prolife

Nothing against you, but that term, to be frank, is insulting, degrading, and utterly misleading. If you have two main sides to an argument, and one refers to themselves as "pro-life", what is the natural opposite to that? Anti-life. Now, most people do know that the other side of the argument is called being "pro-choice" (which is a fair term, as so-called "pro-lifers" wish to remove the choice of having an abortion or not), but practically everyone on Earth is "pro-life" (save the suicidal people). No one likes the idea of an abortion. Find me a rational person that does, and you'll be dividing by zero. If it could be avoided, it would be wonderful. However, abortions are necessary. An ugly fact of life. If women want to have an abortion, they won't care if it's illegal or not. If it wasn't for the clinics, we would be back to coat hangers and pencils done in back alleys, or in shadow clinics. Which is why it MUST be legal to have an abortion in any country that cares about its people. /rant

Anyone want to refute what I've said?

[SoulReaver]

Nothing against you, but that term, to be frank, is insulting, degrading, and utterly misleading. If you have two main sides to an argument, and one refers to themselves as "pro-life", what is the natural opposite to that? Anti-life. Now, most people do know that the other side of the argument is called being "pro-choice" (which is a fair term, as so-called "pro-lifers" wish to remove the choice of having an abortion or not), but practically everyone on Earth is "pro-life" (save the suicidal people). No one likes the idea of an abortion. Find me a rational person that does, and you'll be dividing by zero. If it could be avoided, it would be wonderful. However, abortions are necessary. An ugly fact of life. If women want to have an abortion, they won't care if it's illegal or not. If it wasn't for the clinics, we would be back to coat hangers and pencils done in back alleys, or in shadow clinics. Which is why it MUST be legal to have an abortion in any country that cares about its people. /rant

Anyone want to refute what I've said?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

[SF_and_Coffee]

*picks up [/sarcasm] tag that SoulReaver dropped a little way back, and goes looking for a nail*

[lordofseas]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

I know. It wasn't a rant at you, but more at the term.

[jmoz]

Sorry Hannah, I was hoping for specific extremes to pop and oh look, they have. Also, wanted to see what happens.

Why not? Women's right to her body trumps any onlooker's religious objections.

/debate

It's more complicated than that. So using your idea of women's right to body trumps religious objection, a woman can hypothetically get pregnant over and over again and get an abortion a month before birth, and it'd be ok? Fetuses have brain activity some time in the during the 2nd to 3rd trimester. And arguably, pain receptors. When people get an abortion, it's not exactly a joy ride. Babies undergo convulsions when it is terminated with the saline solution taking about three hours to die.

except that it's not her own body that she's harming...she's harming an innocent life.....natural law tells us that our existence begins when sperm meets egg....doesn't matter what stage of development you kill a human being at....murder is murder.....and medical ethics decree that any medical personnel must do everything in their power to care for BOTH mother AND child.....and that it's better that both die if everything medically possible has been done to save both lives rather than take upon ourselves the power to decide who lives and who dies

So you're arguing that a murder is a murder regardless of stage of development and encompassing the term of 'human being'? So it's all equal eh? Killing an adult is the same thing as killing an infant? Killing a zygote is the same thing as killing an adult and an infant? They're on the same level? So morally, when a couple fertilize eggs and implant them, and many of them do not come to full conception, that's constituted as murder?

You're not giving any room for discrepancy and arguing that they are already 'human' even in early stages of conception, that's very illogical. If they were human then, we should extend the same rights that we do to humans regardless of age? There's a lot of illogical consequences that follow from that kind of reasoning.

In my class, that's the potentiality argument, your argument. Goes something like: A single celled organism should have the right to life because it is going to possibly become a human in the future. Even more generally: X has the potential to be A, so X should have the rights of A. One simple counterargument to such reasoning is: Prince Charles has the potential to be king, so Prince Charles should have the rights of a king.

Insane troll logic?

I may disagree with gater but no need to insult the guy/girl. Only insults yourself man.

[SoulReaver]

I know. It wasn't a rant at you, but more at the term.

you should've clarified -_-

It's more complicated than that. So using your idea of women's right to body trumps religious objection, a woman can hypothetically get pregnant over and over again and get an abortion a month before birth, and it'd be ok?

[IMO] at that point it can be considered wrong - outside health concerns of course - so making it illegal would be acceptable (not that I'd be a staunch militant for such laws)
however even in such cases the woman who seeks the operation/performs it herself should not be held criminally liable, only the doctor who does it (if the woman is also punished then this opens a whole new can o worms anyway) [/IMO]

[jmoz]

You mean in the hypothetical situation, the woman should not be held accountable? Disregarding health and other special cases.

[SoulReaver]

nope

[jmoz]

Why not? That's like punishing the guy who transports the drugs, but not the one who supplies them in the first place.

[SoulReaver]

dubious analogy. at best in this here case it'd be more like punishing the supplier, I mean the father. lol

now for one that holds water, it's like punishing the guy who takes the drugs, and even then, only assuming he took them but didn't buy them

[jmoz]

dubious analogy. at best in this here case it'd be more like punishing the supplier, I mean the father. lol

now for one that holds water, it's like punishing the guy who takes the drugs, and even then, only assuming he took them but didn't buy them

Society does punish the guy who takes drugs though using your analogy. gotta go, will do a more complete reply later.

[SoulReaver]

Society does punish the guy who takes drugs though using your analogy.

yeah well it shouldn't