WTF? Most women having abortion never wanted to be pregnant to begin with. Can you comprehend that you cannot force people into conditions they seek to avoid?
And your opinion is simply wrong. You’ve smuggled in the premise that the “unnatural” is wrong. I wear glasses. Glasses are unnatural. Is that wrong? If you don’t think it is, then you’re merely special pleading.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything here, really. All I’m doing is trying to make you a better thinker by pointing out the fallacies in your claims.
Calm down. I never said anything about forcing people to have sex. This one is way out of left field. Unless your refering to raip most people have sex voluntarily. How do you force someone into a situation they volunteered for in the first place?
I’m glad that it is of your opinion that my opinion is wrong.
How can you compare wearing glasses to what could end up being another sovereign productive individual? Wearing glasses doesn’t stop procreation.
Did you miss health class in highschool? Just kidding, that was a joke! [:O]
I’m not the one living outside of reality here folks. Having sex makes babies. No other human action does that. It’s no accident that a women gets pregnant from having sex. I’m not sayin it aint fun. Use a condem! [;)]
Is there a spellchecker on here?
is artificial insemination ‘sex’ ?
I had one taste of this debate with KoB (he was a lot tougher on me, but I can take it) and dropped being pro-life.
Now I am anti-life. Ok, not really.
I think KoB makes a solid argument. We’ve got no obligation to pro-create, and the baby has no advocates if its parents do not want it.
On the side of the breeders (Byzantine) I think he makes the point, that groups that won’t breed will simply be bred out of the gene pool.
So everyone gets what they want. The breeders take over, and vile people die off. The pro-choice crowd can choose to end or limit their genetic legacy if that is their bag.
Things have a way of working out.
Eating undercooked meat puts one at risk of getting a parasite. If he gets a tapeworm, you would not argue that he cannot remove it. He knows the risk, but gets pleasure from the taste. So I think you still have to make the distinction between human parasite and non-human parasite, which you seem to have so far assumed. I’m not trying to argue one way or the other, but so far it seems that is a point you must address. Also note that not all fetuses would be referred to as parasites, only the ones in the wombs of mothers that do not want them.
Why must there be one objective? If you say pleasure from sex is evolved, then sex for pleasure must be natural as well. And besides, it is obvious that the natural use of eyes is to see. In the same way that you label reproduction as the final objective of sex it can be said that seeing is the final objective of using your eyes. But you would not argue that you should not then use your eyes to try and silently communicate by winking or making other motions, I hope.
I don’t think the argument being made is that pregnancy is an ailment in itself. Only to those unwilling. So this is an incorrect extrapolation.
Very easily. Your complaint is that abortion is an interruption of the natural telos. Fine. Wearing glasses is an interruption of the natural telos. Same thing. Now if you don’t like it–stop making stupid, fallacy-laden arguments and I won’t have to expose them.
And contraception can stop procreation. Is contraception wrong? THINK! Stop making fallacious arguments.
It must be. Contraception is not natural.
Goodness gracious, such anger! KoB have you ever noticed the condenscending tone in your posts?
I was pretty much going to drop the thread as Libery Student summed up the arguments quiet nicely. I think we have all made our points several times over now. I could see how my “Natural” case can be used as a tool to undermine my point now. Funny how you two have jumped on that bandwagon simply for the sake of being right. Trust me though, there is no need to get yourself all worked up over my stubborness.Though I do think that my argument of the fundamental point of Sex is a valid one. I accept your disagrement with it, I just don’t think it’s a fallacious argument as you say. Ultimately all you have to defend your case with is an opinion. Unfortunately for you your personal opinions are not of real importance to me. As I said, I am stubborn.
I have just realized that these entire 3 pages are of me defending my case. I have not heard a single full counter argument from any of you. The attacks against me have been more aimed at my inability to debate and no so much at the argument itself. That doesn’t really bother me it just gives me the preception that my opponent equally has not formally compiled an argument in their head either.
As a libertarian I see the argument quiet simply as follows. If murder is theft of property, the theft of ones own person, then the question becomes when does life begin? I don’t know that there is a right answer. I am not so proud as to make such an assertion. I do know however that its a slippery slope to arbitrarily define the point at which life begins. In my opinion, and I understand that it is not yours, I beleive that life begins at fertilization or recently after. I think it’s naive of an individual to assume that they know the right answer on that one, I think it shows a degree of arrogance.
I have not argued against contraceptions or condoms. Though I think that drugs are probably going to have some unhealthy consequences, your free to take them as you please.
It’s because he doesn’t get enough hugs.
I was where you are, and I know what you’re sorta thinking. But this is a false premise that murder is what is occurring.
Your assertion that life begins as fertilization is easily proven wrong. Are you admitting you are arrogant (and lack knowledge) ? Or are you pretending that’s the case of people who don’t share your demonstrably wrong ‘opinions’ ?
Anyway, before fertilization there are (at least) two cells that are alive. Life doesn’t begin when the egg is fertilized. Life exists before and after fertilization - it is a continuum.
The point is, however, that a bunch of cells is not a human being, that’s why it doesn’t have human rights.
None whatsoever.
Just now picking up on that?
No, it’s about being able to argue correctly. And UR DOIN IN RONG!
And yet it is fallacious. That you refuse to accept is is a sign you need to work on your intellectual integrity.
No, but thanks for projecting.
Actually, it’s 3 pages of you tossing out fallacious arguments. And since your arguments are fallacious: WE NEED NOT HAVE ANY COUNTERARGUMENT WHATSOEVER. Fallacies kill arguments dead.
No, that’s a red herring.
But, since they aren’t natural–you have argued against them. If not: you’re inconsistent.
Work on your debating skills.
I get hugs and drooly kisses from my cat.
yes
People are welcome to their own opinion’s. I’d just rather have people present their argument to me rather then simply state, “it’s this way because I say so” Or to quote KOB.
Those kinds of things are not arguments and are counter-productive.
Indeed you are correct, but up to before that point each cell on it’s own is a haploid, not a monoploid and therefore incapable of producing human life on it’s own.
Also your argument actually doesn’t defend your side but mine. Your argument makes justification for killing actual people as well. Since people are living and you argue that life is of no consequence then killing a 3 year old child is no different then killing an unborn fetus. Or am I misconstruing?
So at what point does it become a human being AND what scientific argument can you present which defends your case?
best quote of all!
But you cannot explain why. How am I to improve my debating skillz?
It’s not a red herring at all. It’s completly to my original point, albiet perhaps a different argument. Explain to me why it’s ared herring?
Can you actually defend your case rather then name call and simply state “No” over and over? At least Juan presented a logical argument. You however are not really offering anything to the discussion. Sadly if you keep up I’ll just have to ignore you as nothing productive comes from your method of discussing.
Trying but arguing at a wall doesn’t really give me the experience I need!
I understand your point here.
I explained how already.
So what? It’s still irrelevant to the basic idea. Perhaps you could explain how it is relevant to the notion of abortion in general, bearing in mind that the woman has self-ownership.
Can you support your case without resorting to fallacies? If not: I’ll just keep pointing them out. I really don’t care if you go off and have a pout about it. Grow up or leave.
Then you understand that I’ve pointed out a fallacy in your argument and explained it. Good. You’ve now contradicted your statement at the beginning of the post.
At what point does a child gain the rights of an individual? At what point does it cease to be self ownership and start to become murder?
I didn’t make an argument. I pointed out that technically, life doesn’t begin when the egg is fertilized. If you think otherwise, you are mistaken.
Now, if one of the premises of your argument is that life begins at fertilization, your argument fails because one of its premises is wrong.
I don’t see how. And it’s not an argument.
That’s not what I said. What I said is that life doesn’t begin when the egg is fertilized, not that life is of no consequence.
You are.
I don’t have a definite and ‘scientific’ answer, but I don’t need much ‘science’ anyway to see that, say, a 3 months old fetus is not really a human being.
In other words your arguing an opinion. The same as KOB.
Please answer this question. At what point in time does the fetus become a child and what is your argument or reasoning behind that point in time?
I’m not. I don’t need to argue that a fetus is NOT a child. It’s a fact, and I don’t need to invoke ‘science’ at all.
I don’t think there’s a definite point in time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus