Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Dudemanguy wrote: "Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." Taken from the almighty wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life What you described was life.

Re-read the sentence and click on the link. You have clearly misinterpreted the statement. Individual gametes do not self-sustain, much in the same way viruses do not self-sustain.

Dudemanguy wrote: Gametes have long been scientifically proven to be life.

This belies your knowledge of the topic. In fact, it's such blatant fabrication that it's hard to even begin to take you seriously. Via Wikipedia, "It is still a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms." It's something you should have learned in high school.

Furthermore, your use of "scientifically proven" suggests that you have no concept of science at all. Even if there were a consensus to which to point, claiming that something is "scientifically proven" is invariably bullsh*t. You can never prove any theory fully, only eliminate possible alternatives. You will very rarely see a scientist make such a claim.

Dudemanguy wrote: They have a "signaling and self-sustaining process."

So if I put a bunch of sperm in a vat with nutrients, they'd still be moving next month? Clearly not. They cannot reproduce on their own.

Dudemanguy wrote: Since it has human DNA, everytime a baby is born, more gametes come into existence which de facto, reproduction.

That's just plain wrong. The cell cannot reproduce unto itself, and no matter how many sperm you have, none of them are going to develop into a baby. They require outside help, much like the non-living virus.

Dudemanguy wrote: Virtually every scientist accepts that gametes are a form of life.

[[WP:PROVEIT]]. Blanket statement with no support.

But hell, let's put it to the test anyway. Let's say that, despite my biochemistry background, I am not your reliable scientist. So let's take the word of a PhD toxicologist: before I could finish asking the question, he interrupted me to clarify that gametes were in fact not life.

Not that it's a simple question. I'm sure you could find those who would agree with your interpretation. Regardless, your beliefs here -- particularly the mystical Stamp of Scientific Proofiness -- are immodestly off-base. It's also unusual that you go to such such efforts, revealing the unquestioned assertions behind your beliefs, to attempt to disprove something that isn't even stated as a fact but rather as a consequence of a traditional and common definition of life.

Life begins at conception but declaring open season on doctors who perform abortions is clearly sanctioning murder. Putting details on where they live and turning them into wanted posters is terrorism.

Show me the woman who would deliberately become impregnated and then carry the baby to near term to just to deliberately snuff it out at the last moment. 

The so called partial birth abortion is a medical procedure done when there are no alternatives, not on a whim.  it's a desperate surgery to save the life of the mother.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 28 2012 at 19:48

Epignosis wrote: KoS wrote: If it's not legal, women will get illegal ones. This is a specious albeit popular notion.  After all, the same people who push for gun control ignore the argument that if we ban guns, people will get guns illegally. Suppose women wouldn't get abortions if they weren't legal.  Does that change whether or not it is ethical?

Not as long as we're prepared to accept the consequences of our actions. Consider an analogy of the inverse: if you had to choose whether to kill an innocent man to save 400 others, would you do it? Is that acceptable? Most people will argue that it is acceptable to do so. How about to kill a man to protect the sanctity of your lawn? Is that acceptable? Perhaps the consequence is not of zero value when making such determinations. I do not know.

Now if 400 people are suddenly camping on my lawn, maybe I have an occupy problem...

Epignosis wrote: I'm not sure what your Philosophy 101 analogy is attempting to accomplish.  It certainly doesn't answer my question.

I am saying that, for most people, the consequences are not completely divorced from the action. That is, whether the law is ethical will, for many if not most people, depend on the actual rather than intended outcome. Knowing the actual outcome beforehand is the tricky part.

Epignosis wrote: No, I wouldn't kill one innocent person to save 400 others.  I prefer not to kill people and I am not a Utilitarian.

You are in a very tiny minority, and I'm sure you recognize this (else you would not have answered at all).

Epignosis wrote: I would not kill a man to preserve the "sanctity" (whatever that means) of my lawn.  Have you seen my lawn?

"Get off my lawn!" is what I mean.

Gamemako wrote: Epignosis wrote: I'm not sure what your Philosophy 101 analogy is attempting to accomplish.  It certainly doesn't answer my question. I am saying that, for most people, the consequences are not completely divorced from the action. That is, whether the law is ethical will, for many if not most people, depend on the actual rather than intended outcome. Knowing the actual outcome beforehand is the tricky part.

I am sorry, but still you make no sense to me.

I also question how you can speak for "most people."  Do you know most people?

Gamemako wrote: Epignosis wrote: No, I wouldn't kill one innocent person to save 400 others.  I prefer not to kill people and I am not a Utilitarian. You are in a very tiny minority, and I'm sure you recognize this (else you would not have answered at all).

Can you prove that I am in a tiny minority?  Even if you can, it doesn't make the majority right.

And I fail to see what this vain hypothetical question has to do with abortion.  Surely one fetus won't destroy 400 people right off.

Gamemako wrote: Epignosis wrote: I would not kill a man to preserve the "sanctity" (whatever that means) of my lawn.  Have you seen my lawn? "Get off my lawn!" is what I mean.

Please start making sense.


Edited by Epignosis - January 28 2012 at 22:07

The T wrote: Somebody has been smoking that lawn they're talking about...

Legalize it!

stonebeard wrote: JJLehto wrote: The T wrote: Somebody has been smoking that lawn they're talking about... Legalize it! I think we can cut a deal here. I'm okay for keeping weed illegal as long as I can roll up a fetus and smoke it.

I support mandatory smoking of fetuses

stonebeard wrote: JJLehto wrote: stonebeard wrote: JJLehto wrote: The T wrote: Somebody has been smoking that lawn they're talking about... Legalize it! I think we can cut a deal here. I'm okay for keeping weed illegal as long as I can roll up a fetus and smoke it. I support mandatory smoking of fetuses The thing is apparently they don't come out dry. Luckily I have a dehydrator, and normally I'd be making banana chips or beef jerky or something, but in a punch I think I could make it work for some primo 2nd trimester kush, ya dig?

Yes, glad we are not afraid to take a real stand!