Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4941 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 1 of 167 (545561)
02-04-2010 9:28 AM


Richard Dawkins writes in his typical style in the Washington Post about Tim Tebow's pro-life advertisement.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/...tim_tebow_fallacy.html
I understand and agree with Dawkins' assertions about how many people have never been born and how incredibly lucky we are to be born, etc. I understand the logic of potential lives being prevented every time someone refuses sex, for example. He's made this point many times before.
But I always find his subsequent justification for abortion falls somewhat short of being a satisfactorily comprehensive and logical conclusion.
You need a functioning nervous system in order to complain, or regret, or feel wistful, or feel pain, or miss the life that you could have had. Unconceived babies don't have a nervous system. Nor do aborted fetuses. As far as anything that matters is concerned, an aborted fetus has exactly the same mental and moral status as any of the countless trillions of unconceived babies. At least, that is true of early abortions, which means the vast majority.
A foetus may not (yet) have a nervous system, but it will usually develop one given a chance. So why is it acceptable to terminate it?
Couldn't a similar argument be put forward for someone in a coma? OK, they may technically have a nervous system in place, but it's not functioning properly - they are unlikely to be feeling pain, regret, etc. Yet, for as long as there is a reasonable chance someone may come out of a coma, we don't normally consider it acceptable to turn off their life support.
The average chances of a coma victim (re)gaining consciousness are surely a lot less, or no better, than that of a foetus developing a consciousness.
Is it acceptable to terminate a life just because it hasn't yet formed it's own consciousness?
Thoughts?
(Coffee House?)
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add "(re: pro-life advertisement)" part to topic title.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Straggler, posted 02-04-2010 1:43 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 02-04-2010 1:46 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 6 by Granny Magda, posted 02-04-2010 2:57 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 4:44 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 9 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 5:54 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-04-2010 6:30 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 167 (545598)
02-04-2010 1:10 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 3 of 167 (545603)
02-04-2010 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-04-2010 9:28 AM


Abortion
A foetus may not (yet) have a nervous system, but it will usually develop one given a chance.
As would any unconceived baby. It is just that the "given a chance" mechanism is different in the two cases. I think that is Dawkins point anyway.
Couldn't a similar argument be put forward for someone in a coma? OK, they may technically have a nervous system in place, but it's not functioning properly - they are unlikely to be feeling pain, regret, etc. Yet, for as long as there is a reasonable chance someone may come out of a coma, we don't normally consider it acceptable to turn off their life support.
I guess the difference is that one is a person who is out of action whilst in the case of the foetus it never even reached the person stage.
The average chances of a coma victim (re)gaining consciousness are surely a lot less, or no better, than that of a foetus developing a consciousness.
If true then I think you have a good and interesting point here.
Is it acceptable to terminate a life just because it hasn't yet formed it's own consciousness?
Acceptable as in morally acceptable? If we follow your thinking to it's natural conclusion then do we end up with the "every sperm is sacred" mentality?
But Dawkins point (which I think I broadly agree with) is that the exact same thing is happening naturally all of the time. Yet we don't give a second thought about those. If we really cared about saving the "lives" of the potentially conscious we wouldn't concentrate on abortion. We would concentrate on a "cure" to save all of those trillions of unconceived babies.
Dawkins writes:
As far as anything that matters is concerned, an aborted fetus has exactly the same mental and moral status as any of the countless trillions of unconceived babies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-04-2010 9:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 4 of 167 (545606)
02-04-2010 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-04-2010 9:28 AM


Life, Death and Abortion
When dealing with the abortion topic, I find there are two kinds of people. One kind that understands there is "some time" after insemination and before birth where killing the foetus (or "lump of cells" or whatever) is similar to masturbating into a tissue. The second kind claims some type of unexplained knowledge that a soul (or something distinctively human) is present as soon as semen contacts an egg. Generally, you can have a discussion with the first set of people, but the second set just want to yell at the baby killers.
So, since your OP seems rather rational, I'll assume we're having a discussion along the lines of "but where, exactly, is such a non-life to life point during a pregnancy?"
I like to think that such a point has been defined for a long time. Humans defined "legally dead" many, many years ago. It has to do with breathing and brain functionality. If you have both of those, you're alive. If you lose one, you're dead and people are then allowed to distribute the wealth you may or may not have obtained in your lifetime
So, since we already have a definition... why can't we use this definition in figuring out if the foetus is alive?
UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF (human) LIFE (rev 1):
1. [Determination of Life.] An individual who experiences both...
(1) the continued operation of circulatory and respiratory functions, and
(2) the continued operation of any functions of the (entire) brain, including the brain stem,
...is alive.
A determination of life should be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.
(See RAZD's thread Legal Death, Legal Life... Message 1)
And... ta-daa... a nice line formed for everyone. Pretty fair and pretty much where most people would expect such a thing too. No need to worry about some "imaginary, arbitrary" line. It's the same line used for years and years to identify death. Basically, the baby is "legally dead" until it is "legally alive". Exactly like how all of us are "legally alive" until we lose functionality and become "legally dead".
It is my opinion that in-front-of-this line, abortions should be available to pretty much any women who wants or needs them. Maybe some sort of increasing price per number of abortions or something... but that's all unimportant to the main issue.
I also think that abortions should be available after this line. Just not as a personal decision from the woman. The decision after this line should be made sort of like a triage-situation. There are two lives to consider, and we must take into account the liklihood of saving both or at least one where possible. This sort of decision is best made by doctors and those with such training.
This removes the coma issue you've brought up.
This allows possible abortions for the following reasons:
-it is early in the pregnancy and you do not want to go through child-birth for whatever reason
-you were raped, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is
-the baby's birth will place a significant risk on the life of the mother, regardless of how far along the pregnancy is
This allows for possible refusal of abortions for the following reasons:
-it is late in the pregnancy and birthing the baby will not cause any significant risk to the mother's health
No doctor would be allowed to refuse to do an abortion because "they don't want to" (or "for religious reasons"... if you prefer). The would have to document the reasons why they refuse an abortion in exactly the same way they are required to document the reasons they saved Person A over Person B in a triage situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-04-2010 9:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 5 of 167 (545625)
02-04-2010 2:56 PM


I think the main line needs to be drawn at the reason for termination. I can posit a couple scenarios to describe what I mean.
1: A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. If she is to go through with the pregnancy because she is "pro-life", she will forever be reminded of the rape. It's her choice though. What if he gives her AIDS, and thus the baby is born with AIDS? That's another AIDS victim that didn't have to be.
2: A young girl likes to fuck and doesn't like condoms. She sees abortion as a way out when her stud boyfriend/fuck-buddy knocks her up. If she IS given the choice, one would hope she learns a lesson from it. (I have first hand experience with a woman who had an abortion because her asshole boyfriend forced acid (the drug) down her throat while pregnant, knocked her around and through her down the stairs.)
You look at scenario 1 and think she should be given the choice, right?
Then look at scenario 2. If she is NOT given the choice, she may well do it herself, or carry the child to term and throw it in a dumpster or it is born with severe defects. Can she afford to take care of the child? Maybe. But what if she can't? Adoption, right?
Either way, it should fall on us as a society to teach people the effects of sexual relationships. Abstinence is bull-shit because kids are gonna fuck.
I know, I know: it's not that easy. It should be. The option should be there.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 02-04-2010 4:34 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 6 of 167 (545626)
02-04-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-04-2010 9:28 AM


Evidence Before Argument
Hi JUC,
For this argument to fly I think you have to demonstrate two things;
1) That there are adults in comas who have the same level of mental/nervous activity as a foetus and;
2) That some of these same people wake up from their comas.
Unless you can demonstrate that (and I don't think you're going to able to), none of this makes any sense.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-04-2010 9:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-05-2010 12:02 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 7 of 167 (545647)
02-04-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by hooah212002
02-04-2010 2:56 PM


I think the main line needs to be drawn at the reason for termination.
This also needs to be in context with the disadvantages that a single mom has to deal with. I think we can all agree that fathers do not share an equal burden when it comes to career options, housing, etc. It's not like an STD where your peehole burns for a few days until the antibiotics kick in. This is at least a 20 year investment of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by hooah212002, posted 02-04-2010 2:56 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by hooah212002, posted 02-04-2010 7:43 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 8 of 167 (545648)
02-04-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-04-2010 9:28 AM


But I always find his subsequent justification for abortion falls somewhat short of being a satisfactorily comprehensive and logical conclusion.
The valuation of human life is always subjective, even if it is based on objective events. Some people value human life at conception; some even at the zygote level (believing that masturbation is like mini-abortion). Some believe that human life begins with the development of a nervous system, others when the brain actually demonstrates activity that suggests sentience.
Whether abortion is or is not "justified" depends entirely on an individual's subjective and personal assessment of the value of each stage of fetal development.
The typical fundamentalist pro-life argument is entirely logically consistent with their religious worldviews - they value the human soul, and believe that the soul exists at conception.
The problem is that subjective values are, of course, subjective, and thus subject to disagreement. We can objectively show when a fetus has a functioning brain, for example, but we cannot objectively determine at which point the fetus should be valued as a human life, because that is by definition a subjective assessment.
Since we cannot objectively show the existence of a "soul," the religious have no right to force their beliefs to be obeyed by others. Determining objectively when a fetus is a "person" is difficult to the point of impossibility. Certainly each sperm is not a person, and neither is every egg. Is a cluster of four cells a person? Eight? Sixteen? Thirty-two? A thousand? A million?
It's a gray area. I tend to focus on that fact, and the idea that the value of a fetus as a human life increases as it grows. I don't value a newly-fertilized egg. I hold a 1-month old fetus to be much less of a "person" than a 6-month old fetus. I cannot pick a day, however, when I can say "this is a person." We can all agree that, at the latest, this has to happen by the time the fetus is born.
I also focus on the mother's right to self-determination. It's difficult to say at which point the fetus is no longer part of the mother's body, a separate and discrete entity. As a newly-implanted egg, it would be difficult to differentiate from any other part of her anatomy (even genetics isn't a good guide - each egg and even non-reproductive cells will contain mutations that differentiate them genetically from her other cells). I don't think society has the right to force a woman to endure the psychological and physical trials of pregnancy and childbirth.
Basically, I think like the justices in Roe v. Wade. I think that the value of the fetus increases as the pregnancy reaches term; I think that the mother's right to self-determination blatantly overrides that value at first, and slowly decreases over the course of the pregnancy.
But again, what is or is not acceptable is determined by an individual's ethical system. It's subjective. We will never all agree, because there is no objective answer to "right" and "wrong" any more than we can say that blue is inherently "better" than red. Valuing human life at all is not even an objective matter - it's simply a subjective assessment that the vast majority of us will agree on, for various reasons ranging from empathy to religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-04-2010 9:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-04-2010 6:45 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 9 of 167 (545655)
02-04-2010 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-04-2010 9:28 AM


But I always find his subsequent justification for abortion falls somewhat short of being a satisfactorily comprehensive and logical conclusion.
My issue has always been, who cares what other people do?
Why is there even an argument? It's fake. It is not sincere. People don't care about the mother, the guy who got here pregnant, what happens to her/their life after, if she has insurance, a place to live, any dependances. All they give their opinion on is the abortion it self. Why?
If you have no reason to even think about the life of another human being, why concern yourself with that human being when it is pregnant?
Ignore them as you will ignore them the rest of their life and their life leading up to them being pregnant. It's so fake to justify these abortion discussions with self-righteous bullshit.
Has anyone who is pro-life ever tracked the rest of the babies life to see how it did it's first day of school, or when it got sick, or when it needed food, or shelter, or any other part of a babies life? No. You went on about your day ignoring every other human being you come in contact with. Well, in my humble opinion, we should just keep ignoring them.
Quit! It's fake!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-04-2010 9:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-04-2010 7:02 PM onifre has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 167 (545658)
02-04-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
02-04-2010 9:28 AM


I always find his subsequent justification for abortion falls somewhat short of being a satisfactorily comprehensive and logical conclusion.
Dawkins is so imbued by natural science that he has almost entirely abandoned the very philosophy of science that makes natural science relevant to human beings.
The only lasting reason science is interesting is that something meaningful can be extracted, otherwise it is useless information. If we look at why cancer research is so interesting is because of the suffering caused by cancer and how we might, through science, alleviate it or eliminate it. The only reason anyone gives a crap about squamous cells is because of their potential to cause suffering.
That and Dawkins almost unnaturally worships science as if a religion.
A foetus may not (yet) have a nervous system, but it will usually develop one given a chance. So why is it acceptable to terminate it?
Couldn't a similar argument be put forward for someone in a coma? OK, they may technically have a nervous system in place, but it's not functioning properly - they are unlikely to be feeling pain, regret, etc.
While pain certainly factors in, I believe at the base level it is a straw man in the debate. Stalking someone unbeknownst to that individual and shooting them point blank in the back of the head will almost certainly kill them instantly, in which they will feel no pain. Does the fact that they felt no pain somehow make it acceptable now? Does that diminish the crime?
If not, then what relevance does pain have in the debate on abortion?
Is it acceptable to terminate a life just because it hasn't yet formed it's own consciousness?
It is a difficult moral question that I struggle with because I see valid arguments on both sides.
In ancient cultures, such as with the Greco-Romans, a form of eugenics were routinely conducted for children who were deformed, born mentally retarded, or otherwise had some malady that would prevent them from living normal lives.
In some instances it is seen as a heinous crime committed against an innocent life. It makes us judge of who is worthy of life and who is worthy of death. Who made us the arbiter? Who made us the angel of death or the angel of life?
On the other hand, some would say that it is an act of mercy. Is it better to allow someone the chance to live if that life is spent in agony? Is that really living? When we see a hurt animal, it is often seen as merciful to put that animal down to alleviate its suffering. We wouldn't ordinarily kill the animal, but in this instance we empathize with its pain.
Is there an absolute moral imperative with abortion or eugenics? I don't know. You decide.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 02-04-2010 9:28 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 150 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 11 of 167 (545662)
02-04-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rahvin
02-04-2010 4:44 PM


Religion meets reality.
Some interesting facts that may or may not bear on this discussion:
When human females are born, their ovaries already contain all the eggs they will produce in their lifetime. These number about 200,000 to 300,000 eggs and all form in the seventh and eighth month of gestation. During their approximately 30 fecund years they will release only about 400 of these eggs for potential fertilization, so over 99.9% of the eggs are "wasted". It is not just the vast majority of male sperm, which are produced continuously during adulthood, that go unused;
Approximately 65% of all the released eggs that get fertilized abort naturally due to various causes: fail to implant, the egg or sperm is dysfunctional, the uterine lining rejects the egg, and other causes. Thus, nature (or god) can be seen to be an avid abortionist;
Probably a little off topic, but still very interesting: When a woman gives birth to identical twin boys or girls, she is said to have two sons or daughters. This is not accurate. She has a son and a grandson or a daughter and a granddaughter. The sequence of events leading to birth of identical twins is: an egg is fertilized; the fertilized egg (the conceptus) begins to divide into 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. cells; at the blastula or 'ball-like' phase (32 to 128 cells) one of the cells buds off the clump and begins to develop independently. Note that at the blastula phase, one or several cells can be removed from the clump without affecting the outcome of the pregnancy. A fully normal baby is born. In fact, it is now common with in-vitro fertilization to remove one of the blastula cells to check it (destructively) for genetic defects.
The secondary twin is thus the cloned daughter/son of the primary twin and the granddaughter/grandson of the lady who had all the fun. This twin is not conceived! She/he is cloned! Those who worry about the prospect of cloning humans should be aware that in 0.4% of all birth events (about 2,000 in the US) human clones are currently produced every year. And those whose religious doctrines teach that the soul enters a human at the moment of conception should worry that 2,000 soulless humans are being born every year in the US alone. The validity of their doctrinal teachings can be easily tested by checking if one of each pair of identical twins is an amoral, antisocial, psychopath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 4:44 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Blue Jay, posted 02-04-2010 7:19 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 167 (545667)
02-04-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by onifre
02-04-2010 5:54 PM


I'll play the devil's advocate since I don't have an official position on abortion. I'll argue both for and against the pro and anti-abortion position.
My issue has always been, who cares what other people do?
As a huge proponent on individual freedom, I can sympathize, except when one's persons freedom directly affects another individuals freedom.
Has anyone who is pro-life ever tracked the rest of the babies life to see how it did it's first day of school, or when it got sick, or when it needed food, or shelter, or any other part of a babies life? No. You went on about your day ignoring every other human being you come in contact with. Well, in my humble opinion, we should just keep ignoring them.
I assume that you are on some level outraged when someone is murdered. Do you not care because you didn't track down the victims family? Or are you against the premise of murder?
How is that any different for abortion?
Tracking down pregnant mothers or newborn babies assumes you have knowledge of them and know where they live. 99.99% of the time that is not known, so the only way to protect babies from reckless people who only selfishly care only about themselves is through legislature.
One thing is certain is that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are two of the most ridiculous terms for abortion. Lets just call it what it is. You're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 5:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2010 7:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 15 by onifre, posted 02-04-2010 7:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 17 by Dr Jack, posted 02-04-2010 7:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 13 of 167 (545668)
02-04-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
02-04-2010 7:02 PM


One thing is certain is that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are two of the most ridiculous terms for abortion. Lets just call it what it is. You're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
I most certainly am not pro-abortion. I don't like abortion, and I doubt anyone else does, either.
I am, however, supportive of a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, including whether to serve as a life support system for a fetus.
I am very much pro-choice.
"Pro-life" however is a poor name - most such people support the death penalty, for example. They are simply anti-choice, believing that they have the right to force their opinions onto women and control their bodies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-04-2010 7:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-04-2010 7:54 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 14 of 167 (545670)
02-04-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by AnswersInGenitals
02-04-2010 6:45 PM


Re: Religion meets reality.
Hi, AiG.
AnswersInGenitals writes:
These [eggs] number about 200,000 to 300,000 eggs and all form in the seventh and eighth month of gestation. During their approximately 30 fecund years they will release only about 400 of these eggs for potential fertilization, so over 99.9% of the eggs are "wasted".
Technically, it's 99.8% to 99.87% of the eggs are "wasted."
-----
AnswersInGenitals writes:
When a woman gives birth to identical twin boys or girls, she is said to have two sons or daughters. This is not accurate. She has a son and a grandson or a daughter and a granddaughter.
Technically, then, I could also say that only the zygote (the first embryonic cell) is the woman's son or daughter, and all the rest of the cells in the child's body are not.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-04-2010 6:45 PM AnswersInGenitals has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 02-06-2010 3:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 15 of 167 (545672)
02-04-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
02-04-2010 7:02 PM


I'll play the devil's advocate since I don't have an official position on abortion.
And I'll play, Oni, a mild tempered individual with with a huge penis.
As a huge proponent on individual freedom, I can sympathize, except when one's persons freedom directly affects another individuals freedom.
Yea, but only because it could affect you as well. That's why we care about things, self-presevation. It's selfishness that wants us to protect freedoms, not concern for other individuals.
I assume that you are on some level outraged when someone is murdered.
Nope. Not at all. I am however concerned for my well being and those of my DNA's (kids). I want to protect them and myself from being murder too, so I want laws to cover that.
Guess what, someone just die in America, who cares? Really, do you? Oops, someone just died again, still care?
Death is of no concern to me unless it involves me, my family or friends - they are the only ones I have a bond with.
Do you not care because you didn't track down the victims family? Or are you against the premise of murder?
No, I just don't care. I get on with my life not concerning myself with the lives of anyone else, or the death of anyone else for that matter - except in the cases I mention above. And that's how everyone for the most part is. Lets be honest.
How is that any different for abortion?
It's not, I don't care about abortions either. Have one everyday what do I care? How does that affect my life? What do I care what some chic in Maine did with her collection of cells in her body?
Again, I'm just being openly honest. You, and everyone else, could care less about the individual that's pregnant, why care about the fetus? It's fake sincerity.
One thing is certain is that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are two of the most ridiculous terms for abortion. Lets just call it what it is. You're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
I don't care either way, I don't get pregnant. The only thing I like about pro-choice is that it gives individuals the right to choose. I'm pro-choice on anything. Drugs = pro-choice. Gay marriage = pro-choice. Euthanasia = pro-choice.
Why? Cause I believe people are responsible enough to make their own choices without my irrelevant opinion. In cases where they can't, then some family member who can make a responsible choice for the person. I personally couldn't care less.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-04-2010 7:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-04-2010 8:14 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024