The Glade 4.0

If a fetus attacks you, and you are in fear of your life, then I fully support your right to defend yourself from fetus attack.

So you must condone murder as an acceptable tool for evicting a tenant, a squatter, or someone who gets accidently dropped off at your house.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

What we're arguing is that the zygote has a right to that certain circumstance because it has the potential to grow into a functional being regardless of the wishes of another person providing that circumstance.

Since so many people have a habit of equating a zygote to a human being without considering the circumstances which it needs to get there, I’m just throwing the spanner into it that circumstances does matter. i.e. zygote’s progression to a human being is circumstantial.

Some people, at some point in their lives, require care because they wouldn't live on their own without it. They're still people. Seems to me, the argument that a fetus can't live on it's own so it's effectively not a person doesn't hold the logical weight some would have it hold.

The only argument that holds any weight for me is, a woman has what amounts to the right to have her end of the umbilical cord cut, regardless of the effect it has on the person on the other end.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Well not exactly. A person regardless of the need for care, does not turn into something else when placed in another environment. They may cease to live for e.g. if they put them into outer space, but they won't say, suddenly turn into a huge human liver.

But in the case of some folks, they need that person on the other side of the "cord" in order to live. Let me clarify, I am for abortions. I'd rather see a kid flushed then have to live with crap parents who are in no position to have children. For me, abortion takes the place of the normal darwinism that we've eliminated from nature.

In the end, if people would take personal responsibility, this would be a non issue and we could get to ***** about more important things. But since I'm partially financial responsible for these messes, I damn well will have a say- your ovaries be damned!

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Fetus, not zygote or embryo. You were talking about the zygote, but others made the argument about the fetus.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Some here seemed to think that from the moment of conception, that cell has the potential to become human regardless of time.

You're right taskiss, but fetous by lose definition (cause each zygote's or 'babies' development timing is slightly off) starts at around week 9, where as most abortions done are early stage (pre week 9) abortions.

if you guys are only talking about making abortion illegal for post 9 weeks, then I'm all for it, but I'm not sure thats the case here.

I'm not suggesting anything about the legal aspect of abortion, my position is that I can see some logic in the argument that, if a person's body is property like some suggest, then a woman should have a right to have the cord attached to her body cut whenever she wants.

That's IF the idea that 'a person owns their own body as property' is the basis of the argument, which does hold some logic.

BUT, I'm not really disposed towards thinking that way. I'm more inclined to make a moral argument about such things, right up to the point where abortion is concerned and at that point, well, I have doubts that my morality should trump another persons.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

First of all, **** anyone who eats scrambled eggs. Yes, I'm talking to you. **** you.

Should abortion be criminal or should only late term abortions be illegal? What is "late-term"? Does the mother's rights trump the rights of the zygot/embryo/fetus depending on the stage of development?

All of these questions are dependent on the definition of whether or not the subject in question is considered a human being. And no one has provided a compelling argument for either case. I haven't seen one person present convincing and consistent standard as to when it becomes human.

Uncle Fester:

I tend to agree about the "natural eugenics" (i.e. Social and Economic Darwinism) being necessary for society. Like the pro-choicers, pro-welfare state proponents can never provide a standard for who determining who should receive such aid, how much the rich should contribute and when it's enough. However, I would argue making abortion un-criminal would actually cause much more unintended procreation because of the perceived reduction in risk.

What I hate most about abortion, which isn't to comment at all on my legal position on the matter since I don't have one, is that it just gives irresponsible jerk-offs another way to exercise irresponsibility. Except in the cases of rape and health proving to be imminently dangerous to the mother (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt death will occur), all pregnancies can be avoided by other methods. Again, I'm not providing this as a compelling argument as to legality of the nature of the issue, but rather a social commentary.



There is no such thing as protected sex, not as far as pregnancy is concerned. All sex is un-safe in regards to pregnancy. Any woman who engages in sexual intercourse accepts the possibility she may become pregnant. That's the reality of it whether or not anyone chooses to accept it.

Just because I'm batting 1.000 with the pull-out doesn't mean I didn't also sacrifice a few at-bats in the form of condoms, Plan-B pills, Muay Thai plumb+knees to the stomach, throwing her down M.C Escher's Relativity stairs etc. But I'd still own up to the fact it was our fault if some **** went down. That's what pisses me off about "unwanted" pregnancy the most: the fact that there is no such thing as "unwanted" pregnancies.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Wow, that's one of the more riled posts I've seen here for a while. Sounds like someone needs a nap or a stiff drink.

I could use both.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Any comment on the fact that there hasn't been a compelling argument made for defining the point at which life begins?

Amen.

We just don't know what we have when we're in kindergarden. I'd kill for a nap and carton of milk during my day.

Id fkkn pwn at king of the mountain now!

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

This, this, this, this.

_________________

Well there hasn't been arguments made in this thread for it, but we've hashed that out plenty of times in other threads.

For me the most compelling argument for when a fetus becomes it's own entity is the point at which it is viable outside the womb. Until that point it's really still a subset of the mother.

Nevermind. Useless.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I disagree. Once the fetus develops even a rudimentary brain and nervous system, it begins to have an independent experience of the world - if the mother stubs her toe, she experiences the pain, but if the fetus is injured, the fetus experiences the pain, not the mother. Going a bit further down the line (though still pre-viability), the brain is sufficiently developed for most/all the elements of what we think of as human consciousness to occur. Certainly at that point, I don't see how the fetus can be considered anything but a separate human entity. Physically dependent on the mother's body for survival, sure, but still a distinct entity with its own mental/emotional existence and its own experience of the world around it. I'm not sure where exactly in that gray area to draw the line, but I think the degree to which a fetus has a separate consciousness and distinct experience of the world is a more valid benchmark than the chances of its survival outside the womb.

Life begins when an egg divides. The question seems to be determining the point where the clump of cells becomes "somebody".

I don't think science can answer that question. I think people do it for themselves, and society gets involved only as a tie breaker.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Its already settled that it is a human being, you're simply using a word that you feel is more removed from the term "homo sapiens" so you can pretend it means something else.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No, I like to have terms mean the same thing when people are communicating. If we don't have the same meaning for the same words then communication of ideas is impossible. This is the very basic tenet of a shared language.

Simply because you dislike the definition because its correct usage shows a belief of yours to be false is no reason to damn the person who showed you why it was false. The solution is to correct one's belief to be in line with fact or to attempt to convey your message using proper terms.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Settled by whom, you?

Again human being means homo sapiens so unless you can show how change of location impacts any organisms species - I think your spanner is just some sort of ill-logic you believe to be clever.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Unless she is talking about a non-human zygote (which would be rather meaningless in this discussion) its species does not change.

Settled by the definition of the terms. You all realize all you really need to do is insert the word "person" instead of human and you wouldn't be using the wrong term right? I mean its simply that easy to not be speaking like fools.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Show where zygote means separate human being.

Oh, and as for 'speaking like fools' - you seem to NEED to put down others in a personal capacity in order to win the argument. If your argument fails without trashing everyone else at a personal level, what's that say about your argument?