Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?
IMO:
when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."
what're yalls views on this topic? post below!
Good day and God Bless
Abortion
Moderator: Moderators
- Texan Christian
- Student
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:21 pm
- Location: A small house on a big ranch, in a small town in the big state of Texas
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9381
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1260 times
Re: Abortion
Post #111jgh7 wrote: [Replying to post 98 by Clownboat]
False. I recognize the value difference, just like you. I have NEVER stated that I don't assign a 'zef' much value.Well it seems we are similar in that I assign less value to a zygote/embryo/fetus (zef for short) then to born humans. And yet we are completely different in that I still assign major value to it while you don't seem to assign much.
Clownboat wrote: Who is it that wants the unwanted blastocysts? What is the value of something that has been deemed unwanted?
How many unwanted blastocysts would you be willing to take on yourself?You failed to address the value of an unwanted thing? Here we are talking about unwanted 'zefs' specifically. The mother by definition does not want the 'zef'. You don't seem to either.Children can be deemed unwanted by irresponsible parents. Back in the day and still to this day people of certain race, gender, and color can and were deemed unwanted in certain societies. But we recognize that their value is inherent and not dependent on others preference. As to your question, I'm unwilling to take any blastocysts just the same as I'm unwilling to foster any children at the moment. That should not detract from their value.
Would you be willing to take on a 24k gold bar? I would imagine it actually has value to you unlike unwanted 'zefs'.
Consider me cruel for pointing this out if you must, but it seems to be reality.
Clownboat wrote: Personally, I see greiving parents all over the place trying to conceive, often without luck. Those are the fetuses we should be giving our attention to saving, not the ones that are by definition 'unwanted'.
Personally, I'm not a fan of abortions though.Nope, I view them as potential human lives that have just over a 50% chance of making it to term. I do view a wanted fetus differently than an unwanted one though. Should I not?If I'm interpreting correctly, it seems you view fetuses more as a material possession.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Abortion
Post #112[Replying to Clownboat]
No. You should not. The fetus isn’t a human being with value if one person wants it and not a human being with no value if one person does not. That’s contrary to science. That’s denying science and facts and replacing it with “feelings� and opinion. It also sets a horrible precedence of valuing certain human beings over other human beings just because one can.I do view a wanted fetus differently than an unwanted one though. Should I not?
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Abortion
Post #113That much is fine, what didn't make sense is your contention that you are placing as much value on my child as your own.RightReason wrote: Not at all. It means I’m human and haven’t had the opportunity to get to know your child. This doesn’t mean I think your child has no value. On the contrary!
How exactly are your assertions showing any of that? Telling me your beliefs is one thing, showing it to be true is quite another.I’m showing it isn’t about my opinion or feelings or what I think about your kid. Your child’s value is not dependent on me. Praise be to God.
You've no more shown that value isn't about opinion than I've shown you that value is all about opinion by me telling you my beliefs. You think you can succeed where the founding fathers didn't even dare to attempt?
Why not? I honestly believe that a person's value depends solely on an evalutor's assignment.I’m sorry you can’t understand that. You can’t honestly a person’s value is dependent on another.
Yes, and it has also lead to abolition of slavery and prevention of genocides.Didn’t this lead to slavery and genocide?
Close, the only reason you have any value is if an evaluator give it to you. That evaluator does not necessrily have to be me. (But in would be me if you are asking me to do the evaluation.)Riiiiiiight. So, the only reason I have value is if you give it to me?
Close, the only reason slavery should not be permitted is because of the evaluation of an evaluator. The current popular vote just shows how many evaluators agrees, and the more that agrees, the easier it is to enforce. Enforcement is a seperate issue.The only reason slavery should not be permitted is because of the current popular vote?
Depends on which evalutor you are asking. Persumably you are asking me? If so the answer is below.So, if the majority said it should be ok to hold African American’s as slaves, then that makes it right?
Yes.So, African American’s only have value because we have granted them value?
This can't be the first time you've spoken to a relativist? We outnumber objectivists 2 to 1 in atheist circles. On this site, the relativist usergroup has more members then the realist usergroup. And in the wider world, we are still a significant minority.YIKES! Can’t believe someone actually believes this!
That depends who you are asking, assuming you meant to ask me. The answer is no, it's not okay even if someone else believes otherwise - it is still wrong because I have the opinion that it is wrong.So, [slavery]’s ok if someone else believes otherwise?
No, the wrongness of slavery IS an opinion.You can’t admit the wrongness of slavery is not an opinion?
Close, that the black person’s value is only what an evaluator thinks it should be. And that means anyone, not necessrily someone else. For example, I value myself highly.That the black person’s value is only what someone else thinks it should be?
That you found it ridiculous doesn't mean much to me, nor I suspect, to the audience. Are you going to have a go at arguing against my beliefs?This thread is a perfect example of what happens when we draw a poor argument out to its logical conclusion. The ridiculousness of it is made evident.
Last edited by Bust Nak on Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9381
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1260 times
Re: Abortion
Post #114RightReason wrote: [Replying to Clownboat]
I do view a wanted fetus differently than an unwanted one though. Should I not?Please follow along. I have never argued that any fetus, whether wanted or not wanted doesn't have value.No. You should not. The fetus isn’t a human being with value if one person wants it and not a human being with no value if one person does not.
You are arguing against a straw man of your own creating.
The value of a wanted fetus being greater than the value of an unwanted fetus is not something that science speaks to. If I'm mistaken, please show me where science determines such a value.That’s contrary to science.
I value my wife more than yours (pretend this applies even if you are not married). What is horrible about that fact? You, I would expect would value your wife more than my own. This fact does not make either wife not valued so your empty claim of this being a horrible precedence is rejected at this time for being seemingly nothing more than an invented claim to justify your feelings.It also sets a horrible precedence of valuing certain human beings over other human beings just because one can.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Abortion
Post #115[Replying to post 112 by Bust Nak]
Except that my argument is not based on opinion/feelings – rather the right to life is intrinsic/inherent and NOT dependent on opinion/feelings. All human beings have value by simply being human. It is illogical and dangerous to suggest a human being has value only if some other human being grants it to him/her.
Can you admit the idea that the opinion of an evaluator determines the value of a human being is an opinion?
Soooooo . . . kinda leaves you with no argument.
Why? I believe both your child and my child have a right to life. I don’t believe my child has more a right to life than yours. They are both human beings, even if I’ll never meet yours.That much is fine, what didn't make sense is your contention that you are placing as much value on my child as your own.
You've no more shown that value isn't about opinion than I've shown you that value is all about opinion by me telling you my beliefs.
Except that my argument is not based on opinion/feelings – rather the right to life is intrinsic/inherent and NOT dependent on opinion/feelings. All human beings have value by simply being human. It is illogical and dangerous to suggest a human being has value only if some other human being grants it to him/her.
How sad and unreasonable. I prefer to use science/facts to argue over opinion/feelings.Quote:
I’m sorry you can’t understand that. You can’t honestly a person’s value is dependent on another.
Why not? I honestly believe that a person's value depends solely on an evalutor's assignment.
So Jewish people and African Americans should be grateful that we now grant them value? Until then, they had none. How generous.Quote:
Didn’t this lead to slavery and genocide?
Yes, and it has also lead to abolition of slavery and prevention of genocides.
Sorry, but my value is not dependent on you or anyone else. How difficult life must be to actually take such a worldview.Quote:
Riiiiiiight. So, the only reason I have value is if you give it to me?
Close, the only reason you have any value is if an evaluator give it to you. That evaluator does not necessrily have to be me. (But in would be me if you are asking me to do the evaluation.)
Ok, but it isn’t about the opinion or feelings of the evaluator. It is about the facts the “evaluator� assesses. And the only fact that needs to be know is whether the individual is a human being or not. It’s based simply on facts and has nothing to do with the evaluator.Quote:
The only reason slavery should not be permitted is because of the current popular vote?
Close, the only reason slavery should not be permitted is because of the evaluation of an evaluator.
Soooo sooo sad if you truly believe this. Popular vote has nothing to do with it. Popular vote can get it right and popular vote can get it wrong. The truth is what is right and wrong can be known and isn’t dependent on majority rule.The current popular vote just shows how many evaluators agrees, and the more that agrees, the easier it is to enforce. Enforcement is a seperate issue.
I’m sure they will be so happy to hear this. Such nonsense!Quote:
So, African American’s only have value because we have granted them value?
Yes.
Proving my point what is right/good/truth is not always reflected in the majority.Quote:
YIKES! Can’t believe someone actually believes this!
This can't be the first time you've spoken to a relativist? We outnumber objectivists 2 to 1 in atheist circles. On this site, the relativist usergroup has more members then the realist usergroup. And in the wider world, we are still a significant minority.
Again, so you and I should only have the right to life if enough evaluators say we should? Why does an evaluator have the right to evaluate?Quote:
So, [slavery]’s ok if someone else believes otherwise?
That depends who you are asking, assuming you meant to ask me. The answer is no, it's not okay even if someone else believes otherwise - it is still wrong because I have the opinion that it is wrong.
You realize your entire argument is self contradicting, right?Quote:
You can’t admit the wrongness of slavery is not an opinion?
No, the wrongness of slavery IS an opinion.
Can you admit the idea that the opinion of an evaluator determines the value of a human being is an opinion?
Soooooo . . . kinda leaves you with no argument.
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Abortion
Post #116[Replying to post 113 by Clownboat]
So, if I am pregnant and a drunk driver hits me killing my unborn fetus, there is no value to the lost life? The court would disagree with you.Quote:
No. You should not. The fetus isn’t a human being with value if one person wants it and not a human being with no value if one person does not.
Please follow along. I have never argued that any fetus, whether wanted or not wanted doesn't have value.
You are arguing against a straw man of your own creating.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9381
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1260 times
Re: Abortion
Post #117You made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 113 by Clownboat]
So, if I am pregnant and a drunk driver hits me killing my unborn fetus, there is no value to the lost life? The court would disagree with you.Quote:
No. You should not. The fetus isn’t a human being with value if one person wants it and not a human being with no value if one person does not.
Please follow along. I have never argued that any fetus, whether wanted or not wanted doesn't have value.
You are arguing against a straw man of your own creating.
You litterally just tried to defend your strawman by stramaning again. Nice form!
So I'll just cut/paste to save myself time:
"Please follow along. I have never argued that any fetus, whether wanted or not wanted doesn't have value.
You are arguing against a straw man of your own creating."
Twice now!
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Abortion
Post #118[Replying to Clownboat]
It never fails . . . those with weak or no arguments can never acknowledge the wrongness of something. You literally end up with individuals incapable of saying things like . . . "Rape is always wrong" or "The developing human being in your womb has no value" It never ceases to amaze me . . . I think it is telling when one can't admit obvious truths or it might point out the illogic of their argument.You made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.
You litterally just tried to defend your strawman by stramaning again. Nice form!
So I'll just cut/paste to save myself time:
"Please follow along. I have never argued that any fetus, whether wanted or not wanted doesn't have value.
You are arguing against a straw man of your own creating."
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: Abortion
Post #119That's all fine, but why would these points imply equal value?RightReason wrote: Why? I believe both your child and my child have a right to life. I don’t believe my child has more a right to life than yours. They are both human beings, even if I’ll never meet yours.
But this claim is in itself just your opinion, it is your opinion that the right to life is not dependent on opinion. There is no logic nor reason to this, as you are just appealing to your own feelings. If you have an argument to demonstrate your claim then bring it on; alternatively you can affrim that you are merely telling me what you believe.Except that my argument is not based on opinion/feelings – rather the right to life is intrinsic/inherent and NOT dependent on opinion/feelings.
I do too, the problem here is that you are presenting your opinion/feelings as science or facts.How sad and unreasonable. I prefer to use science/facts to argue over opinion/feelings.
Who exactly is this "we" in "we now grant them value?" Sounds to me you excluding Jewish people and African Americans from that "we," if so then why would you exclude them?So Jewish people and African Americans should be grateful that we now grant them value? Until then, they had none. How generous.
Are you just telling me your beliefs? If so, fine, I can accept that as what it is, your opinion.Sorry, but my value is not dependent on you or anyone else.
On the other hand, if you intend this claim of yours to be more than just a proclamation of your beliefs then I say: prove it.
It's not difficult at all. I do wonder, why would you imagine it to be difficult?How difficult life must be to actually take such a worldview.
Well then make your case, don't present your opinion as facts.Ok, but it isn’t about the opinion or feelings of the evaluator.
Again, don't just call make claims as it that's enough to prove it. Make an argument.It is about the facts the “evaluator� assesses. And the only fact that needs to be know is whether the individual is a human being or not. It’s based simply on facts and has nothing to do with the evaluator.
But that's exactly what I said: the current popular is about enforcement and enforcement is a seperate issue to morality. Did you misread what I wrote?Soooo sooo sad if you truly believe this. Popular vote has nothing to do with it. Popular vote can get it right and popular vote can get it wrong. The truth is what is right and wrong can be known and isn’t dependent on majority rule.
Appealing to the emotions of those hearing this is not a counter-argument. Calling it nonsense is not a counter-argument. Do you have an argument that doesn't boil down to "I am right therefore you are wrong?"I’m sure they will be so happy to hear this. Such nonsense!
But that's a moot point since it was never in dispute - what is right/good/truth is indeed not always reflected in the majority.Proving my point what is right/good/truth is not always reflected in the majority.
No, it's not about whether there are enough evaluators, but which evaluator: whether you and I should have the right to life depends on who you ask. How many evaluators say we should is irrelevant, because what should have value is not always reflected in the majority.Again, so you and I should only have the right to life if enough evaluators say we should?
What do you mean by "right to evaluate?" An evaluator has the ability to evaluate and that's all there is to it, "rights" isn't factor here.Why does an evaluator have the right to evaluate?
No, if you think it's self contradicting, then make your case. Demonstrate where the contradiction lies.You realize your entire argument is self contradicting, right?
Sure, I can admit that but it is moot. I can also admit the idea that the Earth is a globe is my personal opinion, this being my opinion doesn't mean there is no argument for a globe Earth, nor does it imply that the Earth is not factually a globe.Can you admit the idea that the opinion of an evaluator determines the value of a human being is an opinion?
I hope that question wasn't supposed to be your attempt at showing my "entire argument is self contradicting," because you need better arguments.
I think it's more telling that when one keep speaking of obvious truths and facts but can't demonstrate their claims as anything more then their own opinion.I think it is telling when one can't admit obvious truths or it might point out the illogic of their argument.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 2117
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
- Location: St Louis, MO, USA
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 61 times
Post #120
To me this is a simple topic.
Humans are defined as "humans" in many different ways. One of the most notable is our DNA. We even use DNA to define specific humans in courtrooms every day.
If a unique set of DNA defines who a human is in a court of law, and a fetus or zygote contains a unique set of DNA, then it should be considered a unique human being. The Constitution in my country guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That applies to all humans, including unborn ones.
I know woman see it as their body, but technically it's another human's body inside their body. That may be inconvenient for women, but they can take it up with evolution if they don't like it.
Humans are defined as "humans" in many different ways. One of the most notable is our DNA. We even use DNA to define specific humans in courtrooms every day.
If a unique set of DNA defines who a human is in a court of law, and a fetus or zygote contains a unique set of DNA, then it should be considered a unique human being. The Constitution in my country guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That applies to all humans, including unborn ones.
I know woman see it as their body, but technically it's another human's body inside their body. That may be inconvenient for women, but they can take it up with evolution if they don't like it.