The abortion-capital punishment debate

[iago]

I think the whole problem with this argument is that you have to define when a person becomes alive.  If they're human (with all the religious connotations) from the moment of conception, then abortion is wrong.  If they aren't alive till the 3rd trimester, then it's ok. 

I don't think anybody (here or otherwise) has any clear idea, so it's all just speculation.  Different people believe different things about this issue, but there's no hard evidence.  So at the moment, this is an unanswerable question. 

You have to drill down to the core of this argument to see that it's not really possible to prove it.

[MyndFyre]

It's not an infant.  It's a fetus.  Don't confuse the two.

Regardless, it's still a different stage in the development of a human.  A being with the capacity for choice, sentience, love, hate, fear, nobility.

That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).

No, it is absolutely correct.  An embryo, or fetus, if allowed to progress naturally, will absolutely (with few exceptions) turn into an infant, which will later turn into a child, then an adolescent, then an adult.  All of these are stages of being for humans.

DNA, on its own without stimulation or human intervention, will not.

Any animal, on its own during the course if its lifetime, will not.

A pile of shit is not even alive, and there are a lot of other things it can become over the course of its....  existence.

An embryo/fetus either lives or dies in its mother's womb.  Simply because it is dependent on another creature for survival doesn't mean it's not alive.  We have all kinds of symbiotic bacteria in our bodies that we dub alive.  There are ticks that live on birds that wouldn't be alive save for the fact that they eat dead feather pieces.  Those ticks are dependent on those birds to survive, and yet we call them "alive."  If the embryo/fetus lives, it 100% of the time turns into an infant human being.  It is simply another stage of human development.

[CrAz3D]

It's not an infant.  It's a fetus.  Don't confuse the two.

Regardless, it's still a different stage in the development of a human.  A being with the capacity for choice, sentience, love, hate, fear, nobility.

That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).

Human DNA creates people through aritificial means.
Evolution creates different things, possibly people, through hundreds of thousands of years, possibly millions.
Pile of shit is just nutrition, it is gives energy for grow, it isnt the growth itself.
A fetus is immediate

[Adron]

That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).

No, it is absolutely correct.  An embryo, or fetus, if allowed to progress naturally, will absolutely (with few exceptions) turn into an infant, which will later turn into a child, then an adolescent, then an adult.  All of these are stages of being for humans.

DNA, on its own without stimulation or human intervention, will not.

Any animal, on its own during the course if its lifetime, will not.

A pile of shit is not even alive, and there are a lot of other things it can become over the course of its....  existence.

An embryo/fetus either lives or dies in its mother's womb.  Simply because it is dependent on another creature for survival doesn't mean it's not alive.  We have all kinds of symbiotic bacteria in our bodies that we dub alive.  There are ticks that live on birds that wouldn't be alive save for the fact that they eat dead feather pieces.  Those ticks are dependent on those birds to survive, and yet we call them "alive."  If the embryo/fetus lives, it 100% of the time turns into an infant human being.  It is simply another stage of human development.

A fetus without stimulation or human intervention (i.e. mother eating, mother supplying nurturing) will not develop into a human being. Many animals have some of the capabilities you listed. Yet we kill them for our use. Yes, many things live in symbiosis and are alive. We still gladly kill ticks. Being alive is not unique. A fetus has the potential to turn into something else. So does a lot of other things. You are looking at things at too small a scale. Why would it matter if it is going to turn into something else today or in a million years? You take some action - it will change the future. The immediate future as well as the far distant future.

You seem to assign special weight to "naturally". But all "naturally" says is "the way things usually happen" which is "the way things have been happening before" which is "let's not change things". One might also say that a fetus will naturally not develop into an adult human after being removed from the mother's womb. Or that a fetus will naturally be aborted unless the mother eats.

[MyndFyre]

Or that a fetus will naturally be aborted unless the mother eats.

Fine, then, Adron.  Let's have the mother stop eating and drinking (because that's not unnatural "intervention") if she wants the baby to be aborted.  Chances are IMO that she'll abort herself, too.

[topaz]

That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).

No, it is absolutely correct.  An embryo, or fetus, if allowed to progress naturally, will absolutely (with few exceptions) turn into an infant, which will later turn into a child, then an adolescent, then an adult.  All of these are stages of being for humans.

DNA, on its own without stimulation or human intervention, will not.

Any animal, on its own during the course if its lifetime, will not.

A pile of shit is not even alive, and there are a lot of other things it can become over the course of its....  existence.

An embryo/fetus either lives or dies in its mother's womb.  Simply because it is dependent on another creature for survival doesn't mean it's not alive.  We have all kinds of symbiotic bacteria in our bodies that we dub alive.  There are ticks that live on birds that wouldn't be alive save for the fact that they eat dead feather pieces.  Those ticks are dependent on those birds to survive, and yet we call them "alive."  If the embryo/fetus lives, it 100% of the time turns into an infant human being.  It is simply another stage of human development.

A fetus without stimulation or human intervention (i.e. mother eating, mother supplying nurturing) will not develop into a human being. Many animals have some of the capabilities you listed. Yet we kill them for our use. Yes, many things live in symbiosis and are alive. We still gladly kill ticks. Being alive is not unique. A fetus has the potential to turn into something else. So does a lot of other things. You are looking at things at too small a scale. Why would it matter if it is going to turn into something else today or in a million years? You take some action - it will change the future. The immediate future as well as the far distant future.

You seem to assign special weight to "naturally". But all "naturally" says is "the way things usually happen" which is "the way things have been happening before" which is "let's not change things". One might also say that a fetus will naturally not develop into an adult human after being removed from the mother's womb. Or that a fetus will naturally be aborted unless the mother eats.

[sentience]

because we are the top of the food chain, there are some inherent responsibilities: mainly, a given not to be savage and butcher possible sentient life (humans), and also because of the moral boundaries. Just because it isn't truly alive yet does not mean it is not one of us

[dxoigmn]

Or that a fetus will naturally be aborted unless the mother eats.

Fine, then, Adron.  Let's have the mother stop eating and drinking (because that's not unnatural "intervention") if she wants the baby to be aborted.  Chances are IMO that she'll abort herself, too.

If that is okay, then what is wrong with the mother taking some pills to abort the fetus? It is hard to see the difference.

[WoOdTroll]

You're all one sided in your opinions, which dont make you wise one bit.

When you are having an abortion, a person, an individual, a living being who hasn't yet had a chance to make any mark on the world is being put to death.  That person has done nothing, save be conceived, for which he or she is going to be put to death.  How can this be a consequence?  We are told that actions come with consequences; consequences aren't made themselves.

Definitely one sided here, its their choice, its their baby. Not only that but you have to look at it from the males point of view too. Sure its his sperm, but its her body, and if she wants to keep the child, and cant support it, and basically uses the child for money problems and other shit( I know people who do this ) then its totally unfair. In other words she fucks you around, but then you shouldn't of fucked her to begin with, but mistakes happen.

I am all for it because stupid shit like that happens all the time. Also if a girl did that too me, I'd punch her in the stomach and make it look like an accident. I simply don't care.

Normally children are suppose to occur with married couples who can support and raise the damn child. Instead of a dumb teens who do not understand life that well yet, and becoming a terrible examples.

Having children is a choice, and if you arent ready for it, it shouldn't be considered murder because it can't even think, eat, live basically without you yet.

Think of it this way is it fair that some guy who had a stroke, became a veggie because he didn't have oxygen in his brain in time? This person gets a few months or years then they say, "we're going to let you starv to death because you cost us money and cant think or do anything". Babies are exactly that until a certain age. Imagine thats 10x worse with a dumb baby in the stomach still developing limbs, and brain cells.

If this isn't murder, but abortion is, you need to get some things straighten out...

[WoOdTroll]

Also, I believe in that even if it was me in the stomach.

[Explicit]

You're all one sided in your opinions, which dont make you wise one bit.

When you are having an abortion, a person, an individual, a living being who hasn't yet had a chance to make any mark on the world is being put to death.  That person has done nothing, save be conceived, for which he or she is going to be put to death.  How can this be a consequence?  We are told that actions come with consequences; consequences aren't made themselves.

Definitely one sided here, its their choice, its their baby. Not only that but you have to look at it from the males point of view too. Sure its his sperm, but its her body, and if she wants to keep the child, and cant support it, and basically uses the child for money problems and other shit( I know people who do this ) then its totally unfair. In other words she fucks you around, but then you shouldn't of fucked her to begin with, but mistakes happen.

I am all for it because stupid shit like that happens all the time. Also if a girl did that too me, I'd punch her in the stomach and make it look like an accident. I simply don't care.

Normally children are suppose to occur with married couples who can support and raise the damn child. Instead of a dumb teens who do not understand life that well yet, and becoming a terrible examples.

Having children is a choice, and if you arent ready for it, it shouldn't be considered murder because it can't even think, eat, live basically without you yet.

Think of it this way is it fair that some guy who had a stroke, became a veggie because he didn't have oxygen in his brain in time? This person gets a few months or years then they say, "we're going to let you starv to death because you cost us money and cant think or do anything". Babies are exactly that until a certain age. Imagine thats 10x worse with a dumb baby in the stomach still developing limbs, and brain cells.

If this isn't murder, but abortion is, you need to get some things straighten out...

I'm still unclear as to what side you are on.  Clarify for me, because you seem to be hopping back and forth.

[CrAz3D]

I'd like to note that 'back in the day' girls were married w/kids @ age 13

[WoOdTroll]

I dont have a side, it depends on the situation. If me, and a women were planning on getting married, and happened to have a child before the marriage for instance, I wouldn't ask for an abortion. But if I was a teen, and fucked some girl, and the condom blew, then I would.

[MyndFyre]

Sure its his sperm, but its her body, and if she wants to keep the child, and cant support it, and basically uses the child for money problems and other shit( I know people who do this ) then its totally unfair. In other words she fucks you around, but then you shouldn't of fucked her to begin with, but mistakes happen.

What about the baby's body?

Normally children are suppose to occur with married couples who can support and raise the damn child. Instead of a dumb teens who do not understand life that well yet, and becoming a terrible examples.

Having children is a choice, and if you arent ready for it, it shouldn't be considered murder because it can't even think, eat, live basically without you yet.

Yes, having children is a choice.  And if you're not ready for it, you shouldn't be fucking the next guy who comes in the door.  Why should an unborn child who cannot even speak for himself or herself be punished because you wanted to get laid?

[WoOdTroll]

What about the baby's body?

How many times have you punished millions everytime you want to jerk off? He/she is simply not lucky, and thats that. Its like a kid losing his leg from stepping on a mine. Why should he lose his leg because of a war that happened 60 years ago?

[Adron]

Yes, having children is a choice.  And if you're not ready for it, you shouldn't be fucking the next guy who comes in the door.  Why should an unborn child who cannot even speak for himself or herself be punished because you wanted to get laid?

An abortion is not punishment. It is merely nonexistence. And coincidentally, that is the same the unborn child would have received, had you not wanted to get laid.